quote: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-12/uop-gsc121809.php PHILADELPHIA –- People who identify as African-American may be as little as 1 percent West African or as much as 99 percent, just one finding of a large-scale, genome-wide study of African and African-American ancestry released today.
An international research team led by scientists from the University of Pennsylvania and Cornell University has collected and analyzed genotype data from 365 African-Americans, 203 people from 12 West African populations and 400 Europeans from 42 countries to provide a genome-wide perspective of African and African-American ancestry.
The data reveal genomic diversity among African and African-American populations far more complex than originally thought and reflect deep historical, cultural and linguistic impacts on gene flow among populations. The data also point to the ability of geneticists to reliably discern ancestry using such data. Scientists found, for example, that they could distinguish African and European ancestry at each region of the genome of self-identified-African Americans.
Sarah Tishkoff, a geneticist at Penn, and Carlos Bustamante, a computational biologist at Cornell, led the study to analyze 300,000 genetic markers from across the genome from West African, African-American and European-American populations to see whether they could reliably distinguish ancestry.
The team found that, while some West African populations are nearly indistinguishable, there are clear and discernible genetic differences among some groups, divided along linguistic and geographic lines.
This newly acquired genetic data revealed a number of important advances, including:
The rich mosaic of African-American ancestry. Among the 365 African-Americans in the study, individuals had as little as 1 percent West African ancestry and as much as 99 percent. There are significant implications for pharmacogenomic studies and assessment of disease risk. It appears that the range of genetic ancestry captured under the term African-American is extremely diverse, suggesting that caution should be used in prescribing treatment based on differential guidelines for African-Americans. A median proportion of European ancestry in African-Americans of 18.5 percent, with large variation among individuals. The predominately African origin of X chromosomes of African-Americans. This is consistent with the pattern of gene flow where mothers were mostly of African ancestry while fathers were either of African or European ancestry. A technique which can reliably distinguish African and European ancestry for any particular region of the genome in African-Americans. This could have implications for personalized ancestry reconstructions, personalized medicine and more effective drug treatments and could aid in developing more effective methods for mapping genetic risk factors for diseases common in African-Americans, such as hypertension, diabetes and prostate cancer. The similarity of the West African component of African-American ancestry to the profile from non-Bantu Niger-Kordofanian speaking populations, which include the Igbo and Yoruba from Nigeria and the Brong from Ghana A comparison of the West African segments of African-American genomes. This is wholly in line with historical documents showing that the Igbo and Yoruba are two of the 10 most frequent ethnicities in slave trade records; however, most African-Americans also have ancestry from Bantu-speaking populations in western Africa. Population structure within the West African samples reflecting primarily language and secondarily geographical distance, echoing the Bantu expansion from a homeland in West Africa across much of sub-Saharan Africa around 4,000 years ago.
"Africa, which is the homeland of all modern humans, contains more than 2,000 ethnolinguistic groups and harbors great genetic and phenotypic diversity; however, little is known about fine-scale population structure at a genome-wide level," said Tishkoff, professor in the departments of genetics and biology at Penn. "We were able to distinguish among closely related West African populations and showed that genetically inferred ancestry correlates strongly with geography and language, reflecting historic migration events in Africa.
"We were also able to show that there is little genetic differentiation among African-Americans in the African portion of their ancestry, reflecting the fact that most African-Americans have ancestry from several regions of western Africa. The greatest variation among African-Americans is in their proportion of European ancestry, which has important implications for the design of personalized medical treatments."
The study focused primarily on the genetic structure of West African populations, as previous genetic and historical studies suggested that the region was the source for most of the ancestry of present-day African-Americans. The results suggest that there are clear and discernible genetic differences among some of the West African populations, whereas others appear to be nearly indistinguishable, even when comparing more than 300,000 genetic markers. The researchers note that a larger sample size would likely reveal further substructure and diversity between these populations.
Analyzing patterns of population structure and individual ancestry in Africans and African-Americans illuminates the history of human populations and is critical for undertaking medical genomic studies on a global scale. Understanding ancestry not only provides insight into historical migration patterns, human origins and greater understanding of evolutionary forces, but also allows researchers to examine disease susceptibility and pharmacogenic response, and to develop personalized drugs and treatments, a frontier in public health.
There is also strong reason to believe that high-density genotype data from African and African-American populations may pinpoint more precisely the geographic origin of African ancestry in African-Americans, the researchers said. The study appears online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. DNA study illsutration: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/SzHW0AMfI9I/AAAAAAAACFA/srGfLRIyq_Q/s1600-h/bryc.png
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
You're dismissed Beluga. See below.
------------------------------------ "With these findings documented in 18th-century American newspapers, Indian Americans, or South Asian Americans, or Desis, as many of them like to call themselves, stand on the cusp of rewriting their history by acknowledging the full complement of their heritage—including that of slaves in America." ------------------------------------
The above refutes prmiddleeastern's crack pot "study". Either these scientists are lying and know the historical truth but have a mindset so intracted with racial dogma they knowingly diseminate falsehoods, or they know nothing about history which renders their professionalism as incompetent.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: "With these findings documented in 18th-century American newspapers, Indian Americans, or South Asian Americans, or Desis, as many of them like to call themselves, stand on the cusp of rewriting their history by acknowledging the full complement of their heritage—including that of slaves in America."
What have this to do with the article posted?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
It has everything to do with it Beluga. You see it is documented historically that other Africans groups (north, east, and southern), South Asians, Iranians, Turks, Levantines, Gulf Arabs, Greeks, Italians, Spanish, and Portuguese were brought to the Americas as slaves.
Yet we are to believe that the only DNA that African Americans have ties to is so called "west" African dna, which then conveniently allows for Eurocentrists to lay claim to the DNA that is supposedly non-"west" African.
Conveniently whites only do this when the AA is thought to be either successful, wealthy, good looking, talented, etc.
They never try to claim someone who is in prison or living on government assistance.
Which tells anyone with a brain that whites tell lies with these studies to boost up their own pathetic low levels of self-esteem. These "studies" are rightfully looked at as jokes.
Posted by Recovering Afrocentrist (Member # 17311) on :
un freggin believable! even when faced with facts, the Afronut will attempt to invoke his imaginary, self-created, self hate filled reality. YOU ARE WEST AFRICAN! GET OVER IT!
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
LOL!
Folks this boy is really pissed off. Ask yourselves the following questions about whites:
Why do they care? Why does it bother them? Why does it hurt them? Why does it seem to affect them?
You don't see any other groups seething with anger over AAs procurring their history and culture.
You don't see Japanese doing it. You don't see Chinese doing it. You don't see Polynesians doing it. You don't see West Asians doing it.
As a white person, enlighten us as to how your psychological well being depends so much on African Americans and Africans?
Explain why you people expend so much mental energy, focus, attention on AAs and Africans.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Also don't think we haven't noticed that you couldn't refute the facts I gave.
Your strawman reply is basically waving the white flag of defeat.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: You see it is documented historically that other Africans groups (north, east, and southern), South Asians, Iranians, Turks, Levantines, Gulf Arabs, Greeks, Italians, Spanish, and Portuguese were brought to the Americas as slaves.
The ones in bold are European and never ssent as slaves, but came as inmigrants to America, and yes, African Americans have European ancestry, proven on genetic tests, like it or not.
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
We all know that African-Americans have admixture.
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: un freggin believable! even when faced with facts, the Afronut will attempt to invoke his imaginary, self-created, self hate filled reality. YOU ARE WEST AFRICAN! GET OVER IT!
It's really sad and pathetic to witness the lenght this imbecile goes to so to deny his own west african ancestry.
argyle you need to stop with these anti-west african outbursts everytime genetic studies of AA's are posted here, it's getting tiresome, you just can't fight facts.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2:
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: un freggin believable! even when faced with facts, the Afronut will attempt to invoke his imaginary, self-created, self hate filled reality. YOU ARE WEST AFRICAN! GET OVER IT!
It's really sad and pathetic to witness the lenght this imbecile goes to so to deny his own west african ancestry.
argyle you need to stop with these anti-west african outbursts everytime genetic studies of AA's are posted here, it's getting tiresome, you just can't fight facts.
Recovering Afrocentrist, is Salsassin or Jaime Pretell. He is not Afro-American.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
This paper can tell you almost nothing regarding AA ancestry. It can't tell you anything because very few Bantu, Yoruba or Igbo if any, came as slaves to the US.
Read the paper. This is why the results are inconclusive.
./
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
quote: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-12/uop-gsc121809.php PHILADELPHIA –- People who identify as African-American may be as little as 1 percent West African or as much as 99 percent, just one finding of a large-scale, genome-wide study of African and African-American ancestry released today.
An international research team led by scientists from the University of Pennsylvania and Cornell University has collected and analyzed genotype data from 365 African-Americans, 203 people from 12 West African populations and 400 Europeans from 42 countries to provide a genome-wide perspective of African and African-American ancestry.
The data reveal genomic diversity among African and African-American populations far more complex than originally thought and reflect deep historical, cultural and linguistic impacts on gene flow among populations. The data also point to the ability of geneticists to reliably discern ancestry using such data. Scientists found, for example, that they could distinguish African and European ancestry at each region of the genome of self-identified-African Americans.
Sarah Tishkoff, a geneticist at Penn, and Carlos Bustamante, a computational biologist at Cornell, led the study to analyze 300,000 genetic markers from across the genome from West African, African-American and European-American populations to see whether they could reliably distinguish ancestry.
The team found that, while some West African populations are nearly indistinguishable, there are clear and discernible genetic differences among some groups, divided along linguistic and geographic lines.
This newly acquired genetic data revealed a number of important advances, including:
The rich mosaic of African-American ancestry. Among the 365 African-Americans in the study, individuals had as little as 1 percent West African ancestry and as much as 99 percent. There are significant implications for pharmacogenomic studies and assessment of disease risk. It appears that the range of genetic ancestry captured under the term African-American is extremely diverse, suggesting that caution should be used in prescribing treatment based on differential guidelines for African-Americans. A median proportion of European ancestry in African-Americans of 18.5 percent, with large variation among individuals. The predominately African origin of X chromosomes of African-Americans. This is consistent with the pattern of gene flow where mothers were mostly of African ancestry while fathers were either of African or European ancestry. A technique which can reliably distinguish African and European ancestry for any particular region of the genome in African-Americans. This could have implications for personalized ancestry reconstructions, personalized medicine and more effective drug treatments and could aid in developing more effective methods for mapping genetic risk factors for diseases common in African-Americans, such as hypertension, diabetes and prostate cancer. The similarity of the West African component of African-American ancestry to the profile from non-Bantu Niger-Kordofanian speaking populations, which include the Igbo and Yoruba from Nigeria and the Brong from Ghana A comparison of the West African segments of African-American genomes. This is wholly in line with historical documents showing that the Igbo and Yoruba are two of the 10 most frequent ethnicities in slave trade records; however, most African-Americans also have ancestry from Bantu-speaking populations in western Africa. Population structure within the West African samples reflecting primarily language and secondarily geographical distance, echoing the Bantu expansion from a homeland in West Africa across much of sub-Saharan Africa around 4,000 years ago.
"Africa, which is the homeland of all modern humans, contains more than 2,000 ethnolinguistic groups and harbors great genetic and phenotypic diversity; however, little is known about fine-scale population structure at a genome-wide level," said Tishkoff, professor in the departments of genetics and biology at Penn. "We were able to distinguish among closely related West African populations and showed that genetically inferred ancestry correlates strongly with geography and language, reflecting historic migration events in Africa.
"We were also able to show that there is little genetic differentiation among African-Americans in the African portion of their ancestry, reflecting the fact that most African-Americans have ancestry from several regions of western Africa. The greatest variation among African-Americans is in their proportion of European ancestry, which has important implications for the design of personalized medical treatments."
The study focused primarily on the genetic structure of West African populations, as previous genetic and historical studies suggested that the region was the source for most of the ancestry of present-day African-Americans. The results suggest that there are clear and discernible genetic differences among some of the West African populations, whereas others appear to be nearly indistinguishable, even when comparing more than 300,000 genetic markers. The researchers note that a larger sample size would likely reveal further substructure and diversity between these populations.
Analyzing patterns of population structure and individual ancestry in Africans and African-Americans illuminates the history of human populations and is critical for undertaking medical genomic studies on a global scale. Understanding ancestry not only provides insight into historical migration patterns, human origins and greater understanding of evolutionary forces, but also allows researchers to examine disease susceptibility and pharmacogenic response, and to develop personalized drugs and treatments, a frontier in public health.
There is also strong reason to believe that high-density genotype data from African and African-American populations may pinpoint more precisely the geographic origin of African ancestry in African-Americans, the researchers said. The study appears online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. DNA study illsutration: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/SzHW0AMfI9I/AAAAAAAACFA/srGfLRIyq_Q/s1600-h/bryc.png
Posted by StTigray (Member # 16910) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: LOL!
Folks this boy is really pissed off. Ask yourselves the following questions about whites:
Why do they care? Why does it bother them? Why does it hurt them? Why does it seem to affect them?
You don't see any other groups seething with anger over AAs procurring their history and culture.
You don't see Japanese doing it. You don't see Chinese doing it. You don't see Polynesians doing it. You don't see West Asians doing it.
As a white person, enlighten us as to how your psychological well being depends so much on African Americans and Africans?
Explain why you people expend so much mental energy, focus, attention on AAs and Africans.
1. Good Question I ask this question over and over of Eurocentrist and they never reply. 2. It makes me feel good that those type people are so die hard against the retrieval of our past. It almost makes you think that stupidity and bigotry is genetic.
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
^^
Are you Habesha or AA?
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: This paper can tell you almost nothing regarding AA ancestry. It can't tell you anything because very few Bantu, Yoruba or Igbo if any, came as slaves to the US.
Read the paper. This is why the results are inconclusive.
But what about the X and Y chromosomes founded on the indidivduals that shows the admixture?
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
I don't see anything wrong with this paper. Everyone knows that black Americans of U.S. descent(since the 1600s) background come from different groups in West Africa - Fon, Bantu, Fulani, Hausa, Yoruba, Tuareg, Mande, Wollof, etc.
In addition most black Americans have European and/or Native American descent due to intermixture with both masters and indentured servants. As well, some of us have descent from Asian or South Indian or East Asian and other even Eurasian descent because of slavery and indentured servitude.
Not sure what there is not to believe. Most of this has been shown through both genealogy and genetics.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
The Tishkoff study stated that the average genotype of AAs is 13% non-African.
More specifically, Kittles's study claims that ~ 30% of AAs carry non-African Y haplotypes and 5% carry non-African MtDNA.
And these non-African inputs average out to 13%.
In this regard, the AA population is like the South African black population augmented by its "coloured" population.
Posted by Avee (Member # 16937) on :
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: I don't see anything wrong with this paper. Everyone knows that black Americans of U.S. descent(since the 1600s) background come from different groups in West Africa - Fon, Bantu, Fulani, Hausa, Yoruba, Tuareg, Mande, Wollof, etc.
In addition most black Americans have European and/or Native American descent due to intermixture with both masters and indentured servants. As well, some of us have descent from Asian or South Indian or East Asian and other even Eurasian descent because of slavery and indentured servitude.
Not sure what there is not to believe. Most of this has been shown through both genealogy and genetics.
Why is it that most AA, when testing for African ancestry only do the maternal test? Even men!I find it weird. Don't you want to know who your daddy geneology is or do you take it for granted that it uncle whitey. Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Avee:
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: I don't see anything wrong with this paper. Everyone knows that black Americans of U.S. descent(since the 1600s) background come from different groups in West Africa - Fon, Bantu, Fulani, Hausa, Yoruba, Tuareg, Mande, Wollof, etc.
In addition most black Americans have European and/or Native American descent due to intermixture with both masters and indentured servants. As well, some of us have descent from Asian or South Indian or East Asian and other even Eurasian descent because of slavery and indentured servitude.
Not sure what there is not to believe. Most of this has been shown through both genealogy and genetics.
Why is it that most AA, when testing for African ancestry only do the maternal test? Even men!I find it weird. Don't you want to know who your daddy geneology is or do you take it for granted that it uncle whitey.
Is this true? How do you who tests for what? Is one cheaper than the other?
Posted by Avee (Member # 16937) on :
quote:Originally posted by astenb:
quote:Originally posted by Avee:
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: I don't see anything wrong with this paper. Everyone knows that black Americans of U.S. descent(since the 1600s) background come from different groups in West Africa - Fon, Bantu, Fulani, Hausa, Yoruba, Tuareg, Mande, Wollof, etc.
In addition most black Americans have European and/or Native American descent due to intermixture with both masters and indentured servants. As well, some of us have descent from Asian or South Indian or East Asian and other even Eurasian descent because of slavery and indentured servitude.
Not sure what there is not to believe. Most of this has been shown through both genealogy and genetics.
Why is it that most AA, when testing for African ancestry only do the maternal test? Even men!I find it weird. Don't you want to know who your daddy geneology is or do you take it for granted that it uncle whitey.
Is this true? How do you who tests for what? Is one cheaper than the other?
Most of the stories i've come accross on youtube and testimonies on the net, MtDna are done most. Isaia Washington took both and both the Y-Dna and MtDna are Africa. Posted by Avee (Member # 16937) on :
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
quote: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-12/uop-gsc121809.php PHILADELPHIA –- People who identify as African-American may be as little as 1 percent West African or as much as 99 percent, just one finding of a large-scale, genome-wide study of African and African-American ancestry released today.
An international research team led by scientists from the University of Pennsylvania and Cornell University has collected and analyzed genotype data from 365 African-Americans, 203 people from 12 West African populations and 400 Europeans from 42 countries to provide a genome-wide perspective of African and African-American ancestry.
The data reveal genomic diversity among African and African-American populations far more complex than originally thought and reflect deep historical, cultural and linguistic impacts on gene flow among populations. The data also point to the ability of geneticists to reliably discern ancestry using such data. Scientists found, for example, that they could distinguish African and European ancestry at each region of the genome of self-identified-African Americans.
Sarah Tishkoff, a geneticist at Penn, and Carlos Bustamante, a computational biologist at Cornell, led the study to analyze 300,000 genetic markers from across the genome from West African, African-American and European-American populations to see whether they could reliably distinguish ancestry.
The team found that, while some West African populations are nearly indistinguishable, there are clear and discernible genetic differences among some groups, divided along linguistic and geographic lines.
This newly acquired genetic data revealed a number of important advances, including:
The rich mosaic of African-American ancestry. Among the 365 African-Americans in the study, individuals had as little as 1 percent West African ancestry and as much as 99 percent. There are significant implications for pharmacogenomic studies and assessment of disease risk. It appears that the range of genetic ancestry captured under the term African-American is extremely diverse, suggesting that caution should be used in prescribing treatment based on differential guidelines for African-Americans. A median proportion of European ancestry in African-Americans of 18.5 percent, with large variation among individuals. The predominately African origin of X chromosomes of African-Americans. This is consistent with the pattern of gene flow where mothers were mostly of African ancestry while fathers were either of African or European ancestry. A technique which can reliably distinguish African and European ancestry for any particular region of the genome in African-Americans. This could have implications for personalized ancestry reconstructions, personalized medicine and more effective drug treatments and could aid in developing more effective methods for mapping genetic risk factors for diseases common in African-Americans, such as hypertension, diabetes and prostate cancer. The similarity of the West African component of African-American ancestry to the profile from non-Bantu Niger-Kordofanian speaking populations, which include the Igbo and Yoruba from Nigeria and the Brong from Ghana A comparison of the West African segments of African-American genomes. This is wholly in line with historical documents showing that the Igbo and Yoruba are two of the 10 most frequent ethnicities in slave trade records; however, most African-Americans also have ancestry from Bantu-speaking populations in western Africa. Population structure within the West African samples reflecting primarily language and secondarily geographical distance, echoing the Bantu expansion from a homeland in West Africa across much of sub-Saharan Africa around 4,000 years ago.
"Africa, which is the homeland of all modern humans, contains more than 2,000 ethnolinguistic groups and harbors great genetic and phenotypic diversity; however, little is known about fine-scale population structure at a genome-wide level," said Tishkoff, professor in the departments of genetics and biology at Penn. "We were able to distinguish among closely related West African populations and showed that genetically inferred ancestry correlates strongly with geography and language, reflecting historic migration events in Africa.
"We were also able to show that there is little genetic differentiation among African-Americans in the African portion of their ancestry, reflecting the fact that most African-Americans have ancestry from several regions of western Africa. The greatest variation among African-Americans is in their proportion of European ancestry, which has important implications for the design of personalized medical treatments."
The study focused primarily on the genetic structure of West African populations, as previous genetic and historical studies suggested that the region was the source for most of the ancestry of present-day African-Americans. The results suggest that there are clear and discernible genetic differences among some of the West African populations, whereas others appear to be nearly indistinguishable, even when comparing more than 300,000 genetic markers. The researchers note that a larger sample size would likely reveal further substructure and diversity between these populations.
Analyzing patterns of population structure and individual ancestry in Africans and African-Americans illuminates the history of human populations and is critical for undertaking medical genomic studies on a global scale. Understanding ancestry not only provides insight into historical migration patterns, human origins and greater understanding of evolutionary forces, but also allows researchers to examine disease susceptibility and pharmacogenic response, and to develop personalized drugs and treatments, a frontier in public health.
There is also strong reason to believe that high-density genotype data from African and African-American populations may pinpoint more precisely the geographic origin of African ancestry in African-Americans, the researchers said. The study appears online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. DNA study illsutration: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/SzHW0AMfI9I/AAAAAAAACFA/srGfLRIyq_Q/s1600-h/bryc.png
What was this Kittle response to Sarah Tishkoff all about.
Response to Misleading Comments in the Sarah Tishkoff Paper Published in Science April 30, 2009 Recently a paper, “The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans” was published in Science magazine by Tishkoff et al. This paper studied 1,327 nuclear microsatellites in 121 African populations, 4 African populations and 60 non-African populations. One analysis in the study explored the use of these nuclear markers for tracing ancestry of AAs. The markers failed to allow differentiation of AAs into various west African ethnic groups. The statement in the paper that has been depicted by the media is: “Thus, most African are likely to have mixed ancestry from different regions of western Africa. This observation, together with the subtle substructure observed among Niger-Kordofanian speakers, will make tracing ancestry of African Americans to specific ethnic groups in Africa challenging, unless considerably more markers are used.”
This statement is in reference to the use of microsatellite markers for inferring African ancestry for AAs. This study has no relevance to what we do at African Ancestry. The study did not study Y chromosome and mtDNA. We do not use nuclear markers like Tishkoff et al. did in this study. Each nuclear marker is found on one of the 23 pairs of human chromosomes, varies, and has two copies (alleles), inherited one from each parent. Due to this complex inheritance pattern it is difficult to determine which allele is inherited from which parent. The mixing of alleles make their use for tracing ancestry difficult.
In fact, over 5 years ago I discovered that using these types of nuclear markers will not be informative for tracing ancestry of African Americans given their mode of inheritance and the diverse west African ancestors who were enslaved in the Americas. During the research for the PBS special African American Lives it was found that the markers are not informative for WA ancestry. When scientists used nuclear markers to trace AAs, like Dr. Henry Louis Gates and tried to place them in a group or region he and the other AAs always clustered in the middle of the groups suggesting that AAs have very mixed West African ancestry.
The problem with testing nuclear markers reveals the importance of lineage based markers for uncovering ancestry. It is the same logic as traditional genealogy tracing for family history. You start with one person, one lineage and build the tree by adding additional lineages. This is practical and reveals that we all have multiple ancestors in which can identify with. For mtDNA and Y chromosome tests these lineages represent those maternal and paternal ancestors. They allow for a more focused connection (a single direct lineage) with ethnic populations.
We educate our customers about the multiple lineages that make up our ancestry. Given our mixed ancestries it is best to test as many lineages as possible in order to get a better picture of your overall ancestries. You will be more successful if you have as much information about your family tree (pedigree) as possible. This will allow us to identify different people in the family to test for more information.
- Dr. Rick Kittles, African Ancestry
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
...ok never mind. i got it.
Posted by Recovering Afrocentrist (Member # 17311) on :
Because the companies that cater to AA geneologic testing placate to the racial politics within the Black community. They know that doing the Ydna testing would reveal that a high percentage of Black males have a European male ancestor. In other words, that old ugly history of slavery; the White master having sex with the Black Jezebel and their sexual union that produced little Europeans in Black male bodies, rears its head. We all know, no body wants that cat out the bag.
quote:Originally posted by Avee: Why is it that most AA, when testing for African ancestry only do the maternal test? Even men!I find it weird. Don't you want to know who your daddy geneology is or do you take it for granted that it uncle whitey. [/QB]
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
No, it could be that more females test than males. Males can test reliably only by way of the Y chromosome. There are no Y tests for females. Similarly females can test only by way of the MtDNA.
Kittles's exact percentage for European Y haplogroups among AA males was ~ 27%. European markers would be R and I--but R exists in the Cameroon and perhaps here and there in West Africa too.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Re Kittles's Reply,
It should be noted that in the last 1,000 years there has been constant migration in West Africa. The existence of different languages does point to periods of isolation among West Africa's groups. But note that the larger the West African group the greater the probability that it has absorbed other smaller groups over time. The Hausas, Fula, Mandinka,etc. are cases in point. It would thus be a mistake to assume that the genotype of all Mandinkas or Hausas are proximate to each other.
Posted by Avee (Member # 16937) on :
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: [QB] Because the companies that cater to AA geneologic testing placate to the racial politics within the Black community. They know that doing the Ydna testing would reveal that a high percentage of Black males have a European male ancestor. In other words, that old ugly history of slavery; the White master having sex with the Black Jezebel and their sexual union that produced little Europeans in Black male bodies, rears its head. We all know, no body wants that cat out the bag.
African Ancestry is black company. Dr. Kittle is the founder. Why would they care what anybody thinks.
Posted by Recovering Afrocentrist (Member # 17311) on :
Why would they care? I believe I answered that in my initial response to you - Racial politics is the reason why they would care. These companies came about as a result of a deep need for African Americans to find an identity; of course that being African. The last thing they'd want would be to turn out results showing European ancestry.
There is a video made by a famous African American Professor, Mr. Gates. He addresses the issue of Blacks suffering an identity crisis. In the documentary, Mr. Gates speaks on how African Americans avoid the history of European ancestry by deluding themselves: They invent a Native American ancestry. It is a very revealing and informative doc. You should check it out.
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: [QB] Because the companies that cater to AA geneologic testing placate to the racial politics within the Black community. They know that doing the Ydna testing would reveal that a high percentage of Black males have a European male ancestor. In other words, that old ugly history of slavery; the White master having sex with the Black Jezebel and their sexual union that produced little Europeans in Black male bodies, rears its head. We all know, no body wants that cat out the bag.
African Ancestry is black company. Dr. Kittle is the founder. Why would they care what anybody thinks.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
But AAs already have an identity as they usually demonstrate when they meet other blacks who are not of their ethnicity. AAs for the most part assume an identity that is forged on the anvil of captivity by white slavers, emancipation in 1865 and the Civil Rights era culminating in the legal enactments of 1965 et seq. They distinguish themselves consciously or unconsciously by their historical prowess in music--jazz, and all AA music have all been internationalised-- and sports--again with world dimensions. This is significant given that AAs contitute 4% of the world's black population.
But the AA connection to Africa is a real one--not contrived as, say, the Jewish connection to Israel, or the non-Saudi Arab connection to Arabism.
In fact, the basis for ongoing white racism against AAs is based purely on the fact that the AA is phenotypically and genotypically connected to Africa. If AAs were suddenly transformed into white Americans racism would disappear overnight and the social landscape in the U.S. would quickly change to that of Canada, Australia or any European mation.
Posted by Recovering Afrocentrist (Member # 17311) on :
Not too sure if you are denying the identity crisis AA suffer from. I will just assume you are not.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: But AAs already have an identity as they usually demonstrate when they meet other blacks who are not of their ethnicity. AAs for the most part assume an identity that is forged on the anvil of captivity by white slavers, emancipation in 1865 and the Civil Rights era culminating in the legal enactments of 1965 et seq. They distinguish themselves consciously or unconsciously by their historical prowess in music--jazz, and all AA music have all been internationalised-- and sports--again with world dimensions. This is significant given that AAs contitute 4% of the world's black population.
But the AA connection to Africa is a real one--not contrived as, say, the Jewish connection to Israel, or the non-Saudi Arab connection to Arabism.
In fact, the basis for ongoing white racism against AAs is based purely on the fact that the AA is phenotypically and genotypically connected to Africa. If AAs were suddenly transformed into white Americans racism would disappear overnight and the social landscape in the U.S. would quickly change to that of Canada, Australia or any European mation.
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
quote:Lamin wrote: If AAs were suddenly transformed into white Americans racism would disappear overnight and the social landscape in the U.S. would quickly change to that of Canada, Australia or any European mation.
And you consider that as something bad?
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: I don't see anything wrong with this paper. Everyone knows that black Americans of U.S. descent(since the 1600s) background come from different groups in West Africa - Fon, Bantu, Fulani, Hausa, Yoruba, Tuareg, Mande, Wollof, etc.
In addition most black Americans have European and/or Native American descent due to intermixture with both masters and indentured servants. As well, some of us have descent from Asian or South Indian or East Asian and other even Eurasian descent because of slavery and indentured servitude.
Not sure what there is not to believe. Most of this has been shown through both genealogy and genetics.
According to Robert Norris 3/4 of those that the British brought to the West Indies were sold to other European nations. He speaks of a huge surplus which no other nations was capable of attaining but that the British were willing to supply others with. So The British were willing to supply other people with slaves. Take that with the fact that the "Sultan" of Zanzibar was
"merely upheld in the shadow of authority by the countenance of the English"
Also remember that the Indians were British subjects!
three-fourths of those that arrive in the West Indies, are disposed of to the French and Spaniards
page 162
Among the adventurers in this trade, the British possess, at present, the greatest share. It was during the government of the commonwealth, that Negroes were carried, in any numbers, to the British West Indies, and then, chiefly to Barbadoes: a few indeed were brought to Virginia, by a Dutch ship, as early as 1620; but it was the Royal African Company, that first carried on, from England, a vigorous commerce to Africa, during the reign of Charles II.......
From these concurring circumstances, the British
Page 163
planters are supplied with Negroes, on more reasonable terms than their neighbours; and a large surplus is left, which is disposed of to the French and Spaniards for specie, and other valuable commodities.
"Unnatural and Ever Prejudicial: Racial and Colonial Hierarchies in 19th Century Zanzibar" By Dyer, Jeffery
The British government in India is said to have begun pressuring sultan Said to conclude an agreement limiting his involvement in the East African slave trade as early as 1812, though the first agreement signed between the two was not completed until 1822 when the Moresby Treaty committed the Sultan to refrain from participating in “’all external traffic in slaves’ and in particular the sale of slaves to any Christians.” As a result of continued traffic in slaves from the island to the British and other territories in the north, the Hammerton Treaty was concluded in 1845, which agreed to end altogether the transport of slaves via the waters routes to any power – Arab, Indian or European – by the Sultan or his subjects. However, enforcement of the treaty again proved difficult for the British and the transport of slaves between the territories continued unbroken.
Page 60 One sailor said that the “sultan was”
never was a man so falsely represented or so little understood as this petty Prince. In England we hear of his munificence, his power… whereas he is merely upheld in the shadow of authority by the countenance of the English.
electronic page 61 the Indians
A pamphlet on Englands policy in East African contends that the Indian population has silently taken possession of almost the entire trade on the East Coast of Africa and had made their influence felt, and in no case more successfully than in blinding people to the fact of their participation in the slave trade
One source going as far as to suggest that “if the natives of India who were connected with the slave trade (and they were the dregs of Indian society) ceased to have anything to do with it, slavery would soon come to an end.
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: Because the companies that cater to AA geneologic testing placate to the racial politics within the Black community. They know that doing the Ydna testing would reveal that a high percentage of Black males have a European male ancestor. In other words, that old ugly history of slavery; the White master having sex with the Black Jezebel and their sexual union that produced little Europeans in Black male bodies, rears its head. We all know, no body wants that cat out the bag.
quote:Originally posted by Avee: Why is it that most AA, when testing for African ancestry only do the maternal test? Even men!I find it weird. Don't you want to know who your daddy geneology is or do you take it for granted that it uncle whitey.
[/QB]
LOL, and you guys seem to do the same thing with Sub Saharan Ancestry within Europeans.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
It can't tell you anything because very few Bantu, Yoruba or Igbo if any, came as slaves to the US.
I suppose "very few" is open to further elaboration, but note...
1)L1a is common in east Africa,…
—but rarer, if not “almost absent” in west, north or south Africa.
—and scarce in African American candidates, “in comparison with other African types”, though it is also worth noting that the African American representatives of this subtype largely match southeast African examples, suggesting that region to be the source of the American candidates carrying that clade.
L1c:
A West African origin for the African American L1c types is unlikely, because American types do not match with West African ones, this region being the best represented in the database. — Salas et al.
The geographic distribution of L1c is especially interesting. More than one-third of L1c haplotypes in our database belong to African Americans, and few of them show matches with continental Africans. The great majority of the remainder of L1c comes from Central Africans, with a few in the west and the southeast. There are virtually none in the east or south; of the “Pygmy” groups sampled, only the western group (the Biaka) have L1c. — Salas et al
L3e1:
—L3e1 is distributed throughout sub-Saharan Africa, but it is especially common in southeastern Africa. This clade appears to have a west Central African origin and is rare among West Africans, although it is well represented among African Americans…The African American types may be the result of direct transportation from Mozambique, given the lack of West African representatives. — Salas et al
Discussed here Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by astenb:
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: Because the companies that cater to AA geneologic testing placate to the racial politics within the Black community. They know that doing the Ydna testing would reveal that a high percentage of Black males have a European male ancestor. In other words, that old ugly history of slavery; the White master having sex with the Black Jezebel and their sexual union that produced little Europeans in Black male bodies, rears its head. We all know, no body wants that cat out the bag.
quote:Originally posted by Avee: Why is it that most AA, when testing for African ancestry only do the maternal test? Even men!I find it weird. Don't you want to know who your daddy geneology is or do you take it for granted that it uncle whitey.
LOL, and you guys seem to do the same thing with Sub Saharan Ancestry within Europeans.
[/QB]
Indeed this is one of the boogeyman questions for the Euro-centrists.
None of the Eurocentrics want to address the fact that Europeans out of all non African populations are closest genetically to Africans.
Whereas populations representing original OOA descendants who still resemble Africans.. I.e, Oceanians, appear furthest away genetically from Africans.
Which then leaves them pondering on the question if Oceanians, Asians and Europeans are part of the same non-African OOA population structure, then shouldn't Europeans be as distant genetically from Africans, as Oceanians are or more?
And if this is not due to post OOA (out of Africa) migrations into Europe from Africa then what is it?
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
^^ QUESTIONS:
1) So you are saying that "white" Europeans are actually genetically closer to Black Africans than Australians, Oecanians who still "look black"?
2) Would Asians be next in line, closest to Africans, followed by Europeans, then Australoid/Oceanian populations most distant?
3) Can you break down the map more- is the sub-Saharan DNA above concentrated in what country? Yugoslavia? And what could account for traces of this ancestry in Yugoslavia/Macedonia do you think?
4) On the reputed white ancestry of African Americans, isn't such ancestry relatively limited- it appears in many individuals but overall it is limited? And I don't hear those hollering about white ancestry in US Blacks rushing to holla about Black African ancestry in white Europeans.. as in the Greek- Sub-saharan links documented numerous times here on ES...
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
quote:Not too sure if you are denying the identity crisis AA suffer from. I will just assume you are not.
If AAs are experiencing any identity crisis it would derive from the fact that they cannot help but continue to wonder why U.S. society continues along its institutionally racist path despite the fact that AAs are full citizens of the U.S. See statistics on the incarceration rates, housing data and quality of education levels of AAs.
The answer is simple: it's just that Euro-America remains very uncomfortable with such a large population with unmistakeably African physiognomies in its midst. See Gunnar Myrdals' classic "The American Dilemma".
Thus AAs constantly must grapple with what W.E.B. Dubois called the AA identity crisis of "twoness" in America: being black and American at the same time--but contradictory to white America.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
quote:Lamin wrote: If AAs were suddenly transformed into white Americans racism would disappear overnight and the social landscape in the U.S. would quickly change to that of Canada, Australia or any European mation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you consider that as something bad?
Well, I doubt the vast majority of AAs would want to be white, remembering fully well how badly they were treated by whites--and consequently their psychic view of whites.
That would certainly a psychological crisis of massive proportions. People in general would not want to become what they hate/dislike and fear.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: Not too sure if you are denying the identity crisis AA suffer from. I will just assume you are not.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: But AAs already have an identity as they usually demonstrate when they meet other blacks who are not of their ethnicity. AAs for the most part assume an identity that is forged on the anvil of captivity by white slavers, emancipation in 1865 and the Civil Rights era culminating in the legal enactments of 1965 et seq. They distinguish themselves consciously or unconsciously by their historical prowess in music--jazz, and all AA music have all been internationalised-- and sports--again with world dimensions. This is significant given that AAs contitute 4% of the world's black population.
But the AA connection to Africa is a real one--not contrived as, say, the Jewish connection to Israel, or the non-Saudi Arab connection to Arabism.
In fact, the basis for ongoing white racism against AAs is based purely on the fact that the AA is phenotypically and genotypically connected to Africa. If AAs were suddenly transformed into white Americans racism would disappear overnight and the social landscape in the U.S. would quickly change to that of Canada, Australia or any European mation.
Listen Jaime you pale face faggoty monkey, AAs don't have an identity crisis unlike some of your Latino kin like Sammy Sosa. Most AAs know for sure that their are non-African ancestors in their background, but will never identify with that ancestry because it comes from the slavemaster, which is the opposite of what Latinos do.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I don't know how much European ancestry of BAs comes direct from plantation owners rather than from low class whites in employ of their captors, i.e., patty-rollers (largely Irish men living among the shacks acting as overseers and such). Plantation owners at times used middle and upper class whites to stud enslaved African women (in tent show debacles or overnight loans as favors to visiting guests). A few even outright married or made concubines of African women).
There are also records of Irish women buying enslaved African males as studs (husbands).
Some Euro ancestry in BAs also stemss from Euros who were kidnabbed and sold as "one drop blacks."
African ancestry in Euro-Americans is slightly overt but mostly hidden due to marriage preferences. Offspring of wives of plantation owners who studded with their husbands' sons by partially African women would leave no trace of African mtDNA.
Not sure what the very last statement is saying, but I suppose, it would depend on whether the "partially African women" were so, because their mother was African, in which case, the African mtDNA would not be lost. If the wives of plantation owners were fooling around with their own husbands' sons, who were presumably begotten with "partially African women", and then bore children with the latter (?), then that is another story all together.
As I have pointed out here time and again before, some of the imbalance between EA [Euro-American] ancestry in BAs [Black Americans] vs. BA ancestry in EAs has to do with socio-ethnic assignments, with many offsprings from BA-EA couples usually self-identifying as BAs, rather than "mixed" or EA. This in turn has to do with the racialist history of the U.S.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: ^^ QUESTIONS:
1) So you are saying that "white" Europeans are actually genetically closer to Black Africans than Australians, Oecanians who still "look black"?[QUOTE]Originally posted by zarahan:
Basically.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: 2) Would Asians be next in line, closest to Africans, followed by Europeans, then Australoid/Oceanian populations most distant?
Populations with recent (as in post OOA) African ancestry group closer to continental Africans regardless of phenotype.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: 3) Can you break down the map more- is the sub-Saharan DNA above concentrated in what country? Yugoslavia? And what could account for traces of this ancestry in Yugoslavia/Macedonia do you think?
Most of the (post OOA) African derived chromosomes in Europe seem to confined to the southern region, which coincides with the spread of agriculture into this region, this African DNA dies off as you get closer towards north east Europe, despite some patches in these northern areas display African DNA as well, but not as substantially as the southern parts.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: 4) On the reputed white ancestry of African Americans, isn't such ancestry relatively limited- it appears in many individuals but overall it is limited?
Indeed, after a bit of scrutiny one notices that most African Americans tested are noted in the studies to be lighter skinned which shows the direct intentional attempt to identify the non African DNA in African Americans.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: And I don't hear those hollering about white ancestry in US Blacks rushing to holla about Black African ancestry in white Europeans.. as in the Greek- Sub-saharan links documented numerous times here on ES...
As noted in my post you originally responded to...
this is one of the boogeyman questions for the Euro-centrists. Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
.Charlie Bass. wrote:
quote: Most AAs know for sure that their are non-African ancestors in their background, but will never identify with that ancestry because it comes from the slavemaster, which is the opposite of what Latinos do.
Don't run Charlie Bass from this intellectual thrashing.
By your theory one would have to believe that African American men never had sex with African American women. Its interesting how you never hear historians fantasize or even pretend that African American men and women never had intimate or familial relations with each other. They even admit that it was a rarity for such relations not to occur.
Its only when you get to the no life internet loons that you hear myths about the white man is every Africans daddy. Why is their such a difference between the two groups? Could it be their educational degrees make them much more likely to engage in scholarship rather than fantasy?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
alTakruri,
You can backup your claims with evidence at any point. Without it your postings are nothing more than emotional hearsay.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
alTakruri wrote:
quote:
Folks don't you just want to laugh at this clown?
On one hand he's always bitching and moaning about how everyone currently and throughout history hates blacks,
and then on the other hand
He obsessively fantasizes that every "black" person has non-black ancestors because every non-black on the planet couldn't get through their life without having sex with the very same "black" people that this alTakruri claims are hated by everyone on the planet.
This boy is a nut. He's so insane he can't even recognize his own contradictory thought process.
Posted by Recovering Afrocentrist (Member # 17311) on :
Oh? You just now figuring out the pathology of an Afrocentrist? Wait a sec... you're an Afronut too. Figures
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: alTakruri wrote:
quote:
Folks don't you just want to laugh at this clown?
On one hand he's always bitching and moaning about how everyone currently and throughout history hates blacks,
and then on the other hand
He obsessively fantasizes that every "black" person has non-black ancestors because every non-black on the planet couldn't get through their life without having sex with the very same "black" people that this alTakruri claims are hated by everyone on the planet.
This boy is a nut. He's so insane he can't even recognize his own contradictory thought process.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
White women must be the ugliest things on the planet. If white men were supposedly having all of this sex with African women, then their white women are truly the definition of human dogs. White men didn't even want to have sex with their own white women. LOL!
Hey white women even have long noses in the same fashion dogs do. : )
HA HA HA HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
Musculature and body mass don't have to depend solely on acestry, but on environment and alimentation,pure Blacks can have a good musculature and body mass if they feed well, they don't have to be of euro ancestry to be like it,also remember there are Black sub-races like the Paleo-African type who are robust and stocky, and they have no Euro admixture.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Primeme, So what do you mean by "pure blacks". You have posted here on ES many times and by now one would have assumed that some real scientific knowledge would have adhered to your functioning gray matter. Don't you get it by now--if not an eternal D[I chose D over F as an act of intellectual charity--but I am sneaky: "D" can stand for something not very falttering].
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Primeme, So what do you mean by "pure blacks". You have posted here on ES many times and by now one would have assumed that some real scientific knowledge would have adhered to your functioning gray matter. Don't you get it by now--if not an eternal D[I chose D over F as an act of intellectual charity--but I am sneaky: "D" can stand for something not very falttering].
By "pure blacks" I mean blacks without any non-Black ancestry, I tought you were intelligent enough to get that, but I see that you aren't.
Posted by Bob_01 (Member # 15687) on :
Obesity is a huge problem amongst Americans in generally. The vast majority of the population are overweight with a big chunk being obese. These populations are far from fit and toned. Those from Nordic nations tend to be a lot more fit (thus attractive), on the other hand.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Shut up rasol, or do I have to administer another intellectual thrashing to you and send you running from the forum and returning under another handle. LOL!
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
lamin wrote: ------------------------- Primeme, So what do you mean by "pure blacks". You have posted here on ES many times and by now one would have assumed that some real scientific knowledge would have adhered to your functioning gray matter. Don't you get it by now--if not an eternal D[I chose D over F as an act of intellectual charity--but I am sneaky: "D" can stand for something not very falttering]. -------------------------
What are you doing speaking to a loon who surfs nutjob forums? Outside of administering scholarly beatdowns which I have done to him repeatedly, why waste the time?
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Prime---,
But the definition of "black" is always disputed. The defintion issue is problematic on logical grounds because if there are "pure blacks" then there must be "pure whites" and "pure yellows" and "pure whatever". But if Europeans derive from Africans how can there be "pure whites" who, according to scientific knowledge are descended from Africans.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Prime---,
But the definition of "black" is always disputed. The defintion issue is problematic on logical grounds because if there are "pure blacks" then there must be "pure whites" and "pure yellows" and "pure whatever". But if Europeans derive from Africans how can there be "pure whites" who, according to scientific knowledge are descended from Africans.
They derive from Africans, but aren't Africans, they have a different mutation one another, so they aren't the same variation and phenotype, got it?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Prime---,
But the definition of "black" is always disputed. The defintion issue is problematic on logical grounds because if there are "pure blacks" then there must be "pure whites" and "pure yellows" and "pure whatever". But if Europeans derive from Africans how can there be "pure whites" who, according to scientific knowledge are descended from Africans.
They derive from Africans, but aren't Africans, they have a different mutation one another, so they aren't the same variation and phenotype, got it?
prmiddleeastern - Please indicate and detail those supposed unique differences.
Is it a pointy Nose?
Nope, lots of Niggers have pointy Noses.
Is it straight Hair?
Nope, lots of Niggers have straight hair.
Is it thin lips?
Nope, lots of Niggers have thin lips.
Which of course makes perfect sense. As the genetic source of White people, Niggers MUST have what their offspring have.
So what ARE the differences?
Normal Black people do NOT have Red or Blonde hair.
Normal Black people do NOT have pale or Whitish skin.
Normal Black people do NOT have Blue or Red eyes.
Normal Black people do not have these things because they are manifestations of a genetic disorder.
Albinism!
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Mike111, your mama must have smoked crack laced with drain cleaner when she was pregnant with you.
Mike111 if your brain was a bra, it would be sized AA.
You should sign the organ donor form on the back of your drivers license so that scientists can study it and find out how a human being could be dumber than a 100 individual moths that can't understand they will die when they fly into a campfire.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
argyle104 - If there is something there that you disagree with, why don't you just say what it is?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Why are you calling him "Prime" when he uses the screen name pr.... middleeastern?
Where did you get prime from?
Now I see why you always parrot white pseudohistory and pseudoscience you don't even attempt to comprehend what you are reading. As a matter of fact you really aren't reading aren't you? Because if you did, you would have gotten the screen name correct.
You just go with whatever perceptions your tiny mind leads you to.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
argyle104 - It's starting to sound like you are off your MEDS again.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
PRIMEME,
There are many mutations among the peoples of Africa as any Haplo map will show. So again, your idea of a "pure black" collapses.
The idea of "pure black" is shown wrong because modern Africans did not just appear from nowhere; they derive via many mutations from ancestors who were slowly adapting to Africa's various ecologies over thousands of years.
In fact, the Tishkoff study could not help but notice how very varied--much more so than elsewhere because of the time depth that humans have been in Africa--the African genotype is.
So, if one were to use your outmoded terminolgy one would have to conclude that Africans are the least "pure" of all the world's populations.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
lamin,
Folks if this isn't the epitome of insanity.
He's still arguing with a nut about bogus "pure" blacks/"mixed" blacks which everyone knows is baby talk meant to keep people chasing their own tails. The same old, same old.
When was the last time you had a date layman?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Mike111 wrote: ---------------------------- argyle104 - If there is something there that you disagree with, why don't you just say what it is? ----------------------------
LOL! Folks, if this fruitcake has to ask, then its icing on the mountain of evidence that the boy is dyslexia x 15.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
The Explorer wrote:
quote:
Why would anyone take what you have to say about African Americans with anything other than a pin heads worth of sewer water?
Your demonic hate against them is out there for all to observe.
Folks, check out the below and see just how sick in the head "The Explorer's" race hate is.
You have a severe psychological disorder. Your delusional osts are all the same. The same fantasy over and over. Downtrodden put upon victimized "Africans", interracial sex between Africans and everyone else on the globe, and some colorism myth within and outside Africa.
Apparently those hot "indonesian" chicks must be turning you down in droves for you to the time to engage in so much lunacy about Africans.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Its very noticeable how everyone is avoiding even mentioning yet alone discussing the below. Maybe because it blows a hole in the ship of Eurocentric propaganda.
quote: "With these findings documented in 18th-century American newspapers, Indian Americans, or South Asian Americans, or Desis, as many of them like to call themselves, stand on the cusp of rewriting their history by acknowledging the full complement of their heritage—including that of slaves in America."
Comments?
Posted by Bob_01 (Member # 15687) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Bob_01 wrote: ---------------------- ----------------------
Shut up rasol, or do I have to administer another intellectual thrashing to you and send you running from the forum and returning under another handle. LOL!
Don't waste my time, kid. Go exploit those free universities in the Benelux region and shut the hell up. I am obviously not Rasol.
It seems like I posted in the wrong thread. That post should've been in PR's old thread. Regardless, the probability of African-Americans having some non-African extraction is obviously not going to be low. Humans are never pure.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Bob_01 wrote:
quote:
er um Bob
Are Japanese, Koreans, Germans, French, English, Italians mixed with Africans?
Don't run from the question Bob.
We're waiting Bob..................
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Alot of people seem to have a fanatical obsessive need to have AAs be mixed with whites. The question is why?
The reason is because of eyeball anthropology and eyeball geneology, plus a heaping helping of too much teevee and movies.
You see most AAs violate the look that whites have told them that Africans have. One race loon fruitcake even said that 90% of AAs are partial "negroids".
You see that is the anguish that many on these forums are faced with. Even though that claim they don't believe in pseudoanthropology, they secretly do. They believe that there is a such thing as negroid, mongoloid, and caucasoid because that is what white crackpot scientists have told them. Therefore there are some on this forum who cannot fathom that people who don't have the "negroid" look could have been used as slaves. This is because they also believe in pseudohistory.
To cope with the upleasantry of their belief system being destroyed they have to come up with the belief of AAs being "mixed".
This psychoanalysis has been brought to you by Argyle.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Er um, alTakruri
Have you ever run a business?
Slave children from birth to at lest the ages of 5, 6, 7, 8 did not work, therefore they did not bring in any money. Slave children also had to be fed. Food costs money. A pregnant woman's productivity was drastically reduced, therefore further reducing the financial bottom line.
As a result many plantation owners did not want women to be pregnant. They certainly would not have done it themselves.
alTakruri, we need less fantasy from you and more intellect.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
History of Bermuda "In 1509, the Portuguese started to trade Arabian slaves because aside from ridding from those people, they also gained profit."
People the ship named faulty scholarship is sinking fast after being hit with a Argyle truth torpedo.
Comments?
Posted by Recovering Afrocentrist (Member # 17311) on :
Why? You are an Afrocentrist and you don't know why? It is the same reason AA nutcases tie themselves into the historical and cultural vines of other people. The common stream of thinking found amongst the nutcases, whether it be AA dealing with history, pedigree, or culture is to possess what is rightfully others. For example, Chinese culture and civilization was founded by "Blacks" or Native Americans are "Black." Those are a couple of examples off the top of my head but The outlandish claims go on and on and on. There is no shame with these people.
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: [QB] Alot of people seem to have a fanatical obsessive need to have AAs be mixed with whites. The question is why?
Posted by Recovering Afrocentrist (Member # 17311) on :
Yea, here is a comment -
If you are going to quote and omit portions of the quote, then please do it correctly. Next time use an Ellipsis. You should have written the quote like this:
[1] "In 1509, the Portuguese started to trade ... Arabian slaves because aside from ridding from those people, they also gained profit."
Since the original quote is as follows:
[2] "In 1509, the Portuguese started to trade African and Arabian slaves because aside from ridding from those people, they also gained profit"
As you can see, that quote makes a hell of a difference with "African" in there. Now it is either you purposely misquoted or you don't know the syntax to MLA punctuations. I am hoping it is the latter (I'm not holding my breath).
For those interested in knowing where this person lifted the quote, go to this site:
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: History of Bermuda "In 1509, the Portuguese started to trade Arabian slaves because aside from ridding from those people, they also gained profit."
People the ship named faulty scholarship is sinking fast after being hit with a Argyle truth torpedo.
Comments?
Posted by Bob_01 (Member # 15687) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Bob_01 wrote:
quote:
er um Bob
Are Japanese, Koreans, Germans, French, English, Italians mixed with Africans?
Don't run from the question Bob.
We're waiting Bob..................
I am referring to recent African ancestry. The Italians, which you probably randomly thrown into the mix, has RECENT African ancestry.
The other populations, while having an origin within Africa, developed independently within their locations. In other words, they do not have recent African ancestry, which developed recently within Africa! Their recent ancestry has a history in Asia and Europe.
Posted by Bob_01 (Member # 15687) on :
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: Why? You are an Afrocentrist and you don't know why? It is the same reason AA nutcases tie themselves into the historical and cultural vines of other people. The common stream of thinking found amongst the nutcases, whether it be AA dealing with history, pedigree, or culture is to possess what is rightfully others. For example, Chinese culture and civilization was founded by "Blacks" or Native Americans are "Black." Those are a couple of examples off the top of my head but The outlandish claims go on and on and on. There is no shame with these people.
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: [QB] Alot of people seem to have a fanatical obsessive need to have AAs be mixed with whites. The question is why?
God, your hatred of African-Americans is great. You see, Blacks of America, you're still niggers like "us" even though more "elaborate" bombings go over our heads.
To be honest, I don't there is a fundamental difference between aerial bombings or American police officers shooting innocent black and indigenous men. The nation of America isn't designed for you, just as its presence isn't one the majority of the world craves for.
Posted by Recovering Afrocentrist (Member # 17311) on :
The western world is PREDOMINANLY white European. Soooo, I don't get your point. Of course it is not designed for an African minded and cultured Negro. The same would hold true if whites were to live in an African country.
Here is the deal, unless the Negro is willing to divest himself/herself of these things and assimilate, there will always be 'social issues'. But you see, that is the problem - ASSIMILATION. AA don't want to assimilate into American culture. You see it in the rebellious attitude in music (hiphop/rap), the way they walk (I think they call it swagger), speak (blaccent), how they fit their cloths (saggin), etc. AA are still clinging on to the subculture that they inherited from their slave ancestors; a culture of rebellion, anti-establishment, and anti-authority. I mean, what can I say? It is what it is.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01:
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: Why? You are an Afrocentrist and you don't know why? It is the same reason AA nutcases tie themselves into the historical and cultural vines of other people. The common stream of thinking found amongst the nutcases, whether it be AA dealing with history, pedigree, or culture is to possess what is rightfully others. For example, Chinese culture and civilization was founded by "Blacks" or Native Americans are "Black." Those are a couple of examples off the top of my head but The outlandish claims go on and on and on. There is no shame with these people.
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: [QB] Alot of people seem to have a fanatical obsessive need to have AAs be mixed with whites. The question is why?
God, your hatred of African-Americans is great. You see, Blacks of America, you're still niggers like "us" even though more "elaborate" bombings go over our heads.
To be honest, I don't there is a fundamental difference between aerial bombings or American police officers shooting innocent black and indigenous men. The nation of America isn't designed for you, just as its presence isn't one the majority of the world craves for.
Posted by Bob_01 (Member # 15687) on :
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: [QB] The western world is PREDOMINANLY white European. Soooo, I don't get your point. Of course it is not designed for an African minded and cultured Negro. The same would hold true if whites were to live in an African country.
This is so irrelevant. There are specific policies in US that limited Black and indigenous participation. Even today, access to institutions of power are far from equal.
By the way, that isn't the case elsewhere. Have you ever been to Israel, South Africa? In these nations, whites, continue to dominate the nation at all levels. I don't remember white people treated like dogs in most third world nations either.
quote:Here is the deal, unless the Negro is willing to divest himself/herself of these things and assimilate, there will always be 'social issues'
This comment tells me how distance you are from the African experience. The Black population in the US has largely tried to assimilate. Look at this forum! Why is it that Black Americans largely don't venemously attack the US establishment? I haven't even heard Clyde suggest that Blacks ought to establish their own state (as Lakota peoples are attempting).
There are plenty of studies that suggest that Black children hold similar ideals as white Americans in terms of family marriage, ask their parents for assistance, maintain similar (actually higher) levels of attendance, and yet are channeled in schools.
The same goes for automatically assimilated high income Blacks who receive poor health care and are channeled into sub-prime loans at a higher rate than even poor whites. Bankruptcy Laws work heavily against that heavily assimilated by barring access to relief at rates that are much lower than the white counterpart.
This idea of "assimilation" really divorces itself from actual history. That is, much of the large scale public input (New Deal, G.I. Bill, associated infrastructure projects) did NOT involve Blacks or Natives. The changes in the 60s are a fucking joke with no similar hand outs (yes, they are) being implemented. That is why the destruction of Black inner cities due to racist redlining and zoning policies that funneled capital in these areas and the federal budget into WHITE suburbia.
quote:But you see, that is the problem - ASSIMILATION. AA don't want to assimilate into American culture. You see it in the rebellious attitude in music (hiphop/rap), the way they walk (I think they call it swagger), speak (blaccent), how they fit their cloths (saggin), etc. AA are still clinging on to the subculture that they inherited from their slave ancestors; a culture of rebellion, anti-establishment, and anti-authority. I mean, what can I say? It is what it is.
Yes, all niggers act like Hip Hop heads. Never mind, that the Blues, Jazz and Rock culture was developed and established by Blacks. I swear, some people talk as if they have never met blacks.
PS: This is the best of white America. I won't lie, I've met intelligent white people (not here, though), but I doubt we, long-term, could share a common land. It's as inane as trying to force Albanians and Serbs to live with each other and we'll see significant changes suggesting that within our lifetime as well.
You sir are delusional. The consensus among non-black Americans is that Blacks refuse to assimilate. The Arabs say it. The Asians say it. The Latins say it. Southern Europeans say it. Even the Africans say it. Perhaps they got it wrong (sarcasm).
Why do you persist on living in the past? Jim Crow is no more. Segregation is no more. Do you realize AA make up only 12% of the US population. Yet people like you act as if the world & white America owe you. It is the attitude of self-entitlement that is holding us back.
We have schools in our neighborhoods that teach the same state required curriculum found in white neighborhoods. Why aren't we taking advantage of the education? Black Parents are rarely involved in the education of their children. Why is that? Is it because being smart means trying to act "White?" This mentality is what is handed down from one black generation to another. Listen, I can go on and on with my rant but there is just too much to criticize in our culture so I will stop here. I said my peace. Take it or leave it.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01:This is so irrelevant. There are specific policies in US that limited Black and indigenous participation. Even today, access to institutions of power are far from equal.
By the way, that isn't the case elsewhere. Have you ever been to Israel, South Africa? In these nations, whites, continue to dominate the nation at all levels. I don't remember white people treated like dogs in most third world nations either.
quote:Here is the deal, unless the Negro is willing to divest himself/herself of these things and assimilate, there will always be 'social issues'
This comment tells me how distance you are from the African experience. The Black population in the US has largely tried to assimilate. Look at this forum! Why is it that Black Americans largely don't venemously attack the US establishment? I haven't even heard Clyde suggest that Blacks ought to establish their own state (as Lakota peoples are attempting).
There are plenty of studies that suggest that Black children hold similar ideals as white Americans in terms of family marriage, ask their parents for assistance, maintain similar (actually higher) levels of attendance, and yet are channeled in schools.
The same goes for automatically assimilated high income Blacks who receive poor health care and are channeled into sub-prime loans at a higher rate than even poor whites. Bankruptcy Laws work heavily against that heavily assimilated by barring access to relief at rates that are much lower than the white counterpart.
This idea of "assimilation" really divorces itself from actual history. That is, much of the large scale public input (New Deal, G.I. Bill, associated infrastructure projects) did NOT involve Blacks or Natives. The changes in the 60s are a fucking joke with no similar hand outs (yes, they are) being implemented. That is why the destruction of Black inner cities due to racist redlining and zoning policies that funneled capital in these areas and the federal budget into WHITE suburbia.
quote:But you see, that is the problem - ASSIMILATION. AA don't want to assimilate into American culture. You see it in the rebellious attitude in music (hiphop/rap), the way they walk (I think they call it swagger), speak (blaccent), how they fit their cloths (saggin), etc. AA are still clinging on to the subculture that they inherited from their slave ancestors; a culture of rebellion, anti-establishment, and anti-authority. I mean, what can I say? It is what it is.
Yes, all niggers act like Hip Hop heads. Never mind, that the Blues, Jazz and Rock culture was developed and established by Blacks. I swear, some people talk as if they have never met blacks.
PS: This is the best of white America. I won't lie, I've met intelligent white people (not here, though), but I doubt we, long-term, could share a common land. It's as inane as trying to force Albanians and Serbs to live with each other and we'll see significant changes suggesting that within our lifetime as well.
quote: I am referring to recent African ancestry. The Italians, which you probably randomly thrown into the mix, has RECENT African ancestry.
The other populations, while having an origin within Africa, developed independently within their locations. In other words, they do not have recent African ancestry, which developed recently within Africa! Their recent ancestry has a history in Asia and Europe.
Are you actually saying that if hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Africans and African Americans have been within those countries for the past hundred years, the people of those countries are not mixed with Africans and African Americans? However Africans and African Americans are mixed with whites even under far more combative and confrontational circumstances?
How is that possible Bob_01? Your premise does not make any logical sense. You sound like you are a disciple of Howell, Coon, and Blumenbach. What you are saying is the same propaganda they have said. Which is Africans are nothing more than the result of other more advanced groups of people mixing with a primitive population.
Are you an intelligent man rasol, er um Bob_01?
Posted by Bob_01 (Member # 15687) on :
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: [QB] You sir are delusional. The consensus among non-black Americans is that Blacks refuse to assimilate. The Arabs say it. The Asians say it. The Latins say it. Southern Europeans say it. Even the Africans say it. Perhaps they got it wrong (sarcasm).
When did some ordinary plumbers or even lawyers for that matter dictate scientific consensus? There is numerous evidence in the scientific arena that suggests that Blacks, Hispanics and Indigenous people are being channeled in all areas. This is a more reliable consensus one held by the American Anthropology Application:
quote:The tragedy in the United States has been that the policies and practices stemming from this worldview succeeded all too well in constructing unequal populations among Europeans, Native Americans, and peoples of African descent. Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture, we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances. Link
I can't respect "Arabs" who spout that nonsense. The Israelis say the same to Palestinians, the West says the same with regards to troubles in Middle East. Al Qaeda understood understood that Obama was just a low class house slave. You can't fool people with that nonsense and if Latinos et al believe in that bullshit, I guess they deserved to be hit by that racist financial crisis.
Racism affects people of color in general and is why Latinos were also harshly hit by the economic crisis. The loss experienced were quite similar to the Black counterpart. The same goes for over representation in prison and organizations such as Mexica-Organization exist due to that reason. I suggest you go to indigenous sections of America or Canada, white people will spout the same nonsense about "entitlements" as well.
quote:Why do you persist on living in the past? Jim Crow is no more. Segregation is no more. Do you realize AA make up only 12% of the US population. Yet people like you act as if the world & white America owe you. It is the attitude of self-entitlement that is holding us back.
Idiot. How the hell am I living the past when these policies persist? Remember Martin Luther King Jr got gunned down. His presence in America does not even exist.
If he was alive, he'd be pointing out racist policies within the United States. And please stop that "entitlement" bullshit, white America are the most subsidized people on the fucking planet.
The group was the only one granted access to suburbia. That structuring involved funneling out all the state's capital into these centers. New Deal, the G.I Bills, is what made America an industrial powerhouse. Somehow ending "segregation" (which still exists) isn't going to aid integration.
Whites still hated African just after segregation and you expect somehow Blacks will receive accessibility voluntarily. That isn't how **** works and affirmative action is not even comparable to the socialist programs prior to the civil rights. The negative affect of the destruction of black and indigenous communities still continue today. Many natives were driven out of their land in order to create "Natural Parks".
None of that stopped after the 60s, because Detroit was identical. In fact, whites and white investors began to leave the inner city in droves making it impossible institutions. Blacks had schools and other institutions during segregation that were MORE functional than today. Since you won't read what I provide, here are some charts from this paper:
Why does this occur? Well, for one, with Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr gunned down, real change never was able to occur. Most of the policy change was being engineered by the establishment that enslaved and segregated the black population.
quote:We have schools in our neighborhoods that teach the same state required curriculum found in white neighborhoods. Why aren't we taking advantage of the education? Black Parents are rarely involved in the education of their children.
With what you're suggesting, I think it's better to teach white supremacist education in school. Oh man, no wonder, you don't even attempt to back up these claims rather than acting as if you're all wise. Let's just destroy that myth of black intellectualism:
quote: According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 43% of black fourth-graders do one hour or more of homework per night, as do 45% of whites and 47% of Hispanics. Although Asian fourth-graders are more likely than any other group to study one or more hours per night (56% do so), the differences between whites, blacks and Hispanics are too small to explain performance differences, and certainly contradict the notion that blacks or Latinos devalue education relative to whites.
In fact, black and Hispanic fourth-graders are both more likely than whites that age to do more than one hour of homework, with 18% of Hispanics, 17% of blacks, but only 15% of whites putting in this amount of study time daily. Although Asians demonstrate more study time at this level, the differences between them and other students of color are not substantial: about 21% of Asian students in fourth grade study more than one hour.
There is also no evidence that black parents take less interest in their children's education, or fail to reinforce the learning that takes place in the classroom once their children are home. Once again, NCES statistics indicate that black children are more likely than whites to often spend time with their parents on homework.
Black students are twice as likely as white students to get help from their parents on homework every day of the school week (twenty percent compared to ten percent), and while roughly half of black students get help from parents on homework at least three times each week, approximately two-thirds of whites get such help two times or less, with whites a third more likely than blacks to work with parents rarely if ever on their homework.
Likewise, and counteringcommonly held class biases, the poorest students (those from families with less than $5,000 in annual income) are actually the most likely to get substantial homework help from their parents, while those from families with incomes of $75,000 or more annually are the least likely to do so. Half of the poorest students work with their parents on lessons three or more times weekly, while only a third of the wealthiest students do.
Likewise, evidence indicates there is no substantial difference between white and black students in terms of whether their parents attend parent-teacher conferences or school meetings. Black parents and their children are also equally likely as their white counterparts to visit a library, art gallery, zoo, aquarium, museum or historic site, as well as a community or religious event -further countering the notion that black parents take less interest in providing educational opportunities for their kids.
Furthermore, and contrary to popular belief, three of four black children are read to by their parents when they are young, and black youth are equally or more likely than whites to be taught letters, numbers and words by their parents between the ages of three and five.
Of all the evidence rebutting the notion that blacks place less value on education than whites, nothing makes the point more clearly than attendance information. Black twelfth graders are more than twice as likely as whites to have perfect attendance (16% versus 7.4%), and are even more likely than Asians to have perfect attendance.
Whites are more likely than blacks to have missed seven or more days during the last semester, while blacks are less likely than members of any racial group to have missed that many days of school. There is also no significant difference between whites, Asians and blacks in terms of their likelihood to skip classes. Link
Charles Neir Lewis deals with racist policies that's pushed by American institutions and continue even till today. This denial is no different from that said by the Israel or Westerners about much of the plight in the third world. It just happens that whites here are more "liberal" and wouldn't go that far, however. However this nonsense being pushed (even though I'm not African-American) is not going benefit my people as well.
Posted by Bob_01 (Member # 15687) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Bob_01 wrote:
quote: I am referring to recent African ancestry. The Italians, which you probably randomly thrown into the mix, has RECENT African ancestry.
The other populations, while having an origin within Africa, developed independently within their locations. In other words, they do not have recent African ancestry, which developed recently within Africa! Their recent ancestry has a history in Asia and Europe.
Are you actually saying that if hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Africans and African Americans have been within those countries for the past hundred years, the people of those countries are not mixed with Africans and African Americans? However Africans and African Americans are mixed with whites even under far more combative and confrontational circumstances?
Of course admixture occurred, but it is more limited. I obviously excluded Italians from that group, meaning that Iranians are removed as well. The populations in those region often have HIGHER level of African ancestry than African-Americans has of European admixture.
For instance, nearly half of Cypriots have an African origin. That's much higher than the African-American norm. However it is conceivable that some African-Americans would have European admixture. The levels aren't even that significant though, with "European lineages" amounting to 10-15% of the male population. It'd be much lower for women.
quote:How is that possible Bob_01? Your premise does not make any logical sense. You sound like you are a disciple of Howell, Coon, and Blumenbach. What you are saying is the same propaganda they have said. Which is Africans are nothing more than the result of other more advanced groups of people mixing with a primitive population.
What? That doesn't even follow. Africans within the continent are indigenous people, who've developed within the continent and represent the origin of all modern human beings. In other words, the original man and woman.
That population produced the regional derivatives that we see outside of Africa. Europeans are not recent Africans, however. Instead all Africans within the continent are and have a HUGE genetic footprint in Southern Europe and West Asia. That is downright undeniable.
quote:Are you an intelligent man rasol, er um Bob_01?
Bob it is.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: PRIMEME,
There are many mutations among the peoples of Africa as any Haplo map will show. So again, your idea of a "pure black" collapses.
The idea of "pure black" is shown wrong because modern Africans did not just appear from nowhere; they derive via many mutations from ancestors who were slowly adapting to Africa's various ecologies over thousands of years.
In fact, the Tishkoff study could not help but notice how very varied--much more so than elsewhere because of the time depth that humans have been in Africa--the African genotype is.
So, if one were to use your outmoded terminolgy one would have to conclude that Africans are the least "pure" of all the world's populations.
No, Africans are the first race of humans, without any mutation change, the other variations came with the change of environment and alimentation, so yes, there are different variations of humans.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Folks, "The Explorer" could try and inform everyone of why then do AAs resemble people from all over African and Asia for that matter? He is so desperately sure that AAs are a result of so called "west" Africans and whites, then surely he should be able to tell us why they resemble other Africans and Asians.
We're waiting Explorer...................
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
[/QUOTE]No, Africans are the first race of humans, without any mutation change, the other variations came with the change of environment and alimentation, so yes, there are different variations of humans. [/QUOTE]
That is so stupid as to not deserve a response. Do you think about what you say before saying it?
Hint: Where is the greatest genetic diversity found - a-hole.
Posted by Avee (Member # 16937) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: .Charlie Bass. wrote:
quote: Most AAs know for sure that their are non-African ancestors in their background, but will never identify with that ancestry because it comes from the slavemaster, which is the opposite of what Latinos do.
Don't run Charlie Bass from this intellectual thrashing.
By your theory one would have to believe that African American men never had sex with African American women. Its interesting how you never hear historians fantasize or even pretend that African American men and women never had intimate or familial relations with each other. They even admit that it was a rarity for such relations not to occur.
Its only when you get to the no life internet loons that you hear myths about the white man is every Africans daddy. Why is their such a difference between the two groups? Could it be their educational degrees make them much more likely to engage in scholarship rather than fantasy?
I've watched a few AA movies like Eddy Murphys prince in New York when he let Earl Jones with blue eyes play his father(African King)and the mother looked really Africa. I asked myself why would he do that? Bill Cosbys father in the cosby sitcom was light skinned too. Why would they do that if they hate YT for raping their women? Then there is the trend of light skinned men marrying dark skinned women and dark skinned men going for light skinned women. Since light skinned men are most likely have white paternal ancestry and light skinned women the same most AA are or will have more european Dna over time. There is Vid. of one "dark" AA complaining about. He is worried that the dark AA are fast disappearing.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
You haven't provided evidence, facts, or proof of anything you've said. You're dismissed.
PS. Your post is so ridled with falsehoods and stupidity one has to wonder if someone replaced your khat with doodoo.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: That is so stupid as to not deserve a response. Do you think about what you say before saying it?
Hint: Where is the greatest genetic diversity found - a-hole.
In Africa, because that is where the rest came from,and because Africans have the the genetic variations found in the rest(as the rest came from them)also Africans have variations not found on the rest as the environmental and genetic mutations erased those variations on non-africans.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
only 13% of us have European ancestry. [i]
Research Articles The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans Sarah A. Tishkoff,1,2,* Floyd A. Reed,1,, Françoise R. Friedlaender,3, Christopher Ehret,4 Alessia Ranciaro,1,2,5, Alain Froment,6, Jibril B. Hirbo,1,2 Agnes A. Awomoyi,1,|| Jean-Marie Bodo,7 Ogobara Doumbo,8 Muntaser Ibrahim,9 Abdalla T. Juma,9 Maritha J. Kotze,10 Godfrey Lema,11 Jason H. Moore,12 Holly Mortensen,1,¶ Thomas B. Nyambo,11 Sabah A. Omar,13 Kweli Powell,1,# Gideon S. Pretorius,14 Michael W. Smith,15 Mahamadou A. Thera,8 Charles Wambebe,16 James L. Weber,17 Scott M. Williams18
Africa is the source of all modern humans, but characterization of genetic variation and of relationships among populations across the continent has been enigmatic. We studied 121 African populations, four African American populations, and 60 non-African populations for patterns of variation at 1327 nuclear microsatellite and insertion/deletion markers. We identified 14 ancestral population clusters in Africa that correlate with self-described ethnicity and shared cultural and/or linguistic properties. We observed high levels of mixed ancestry in most populations, reflecting historical migration events across the continent. Our data also provide evidence for shared ancestry among geographically diverse hunter-gatherer populations (Khoesan speakers and Pygmies). The ancestry of African Americans is predominantly from Niger-Kordofanian (~71%), European (~13%), and other African (~8%) populations, although admixture levels varied considerably among individuals. This study helps tease apart the complex evolutionary history of Africans and African Americans, aiding both anthropological and genetic epidemiologic studies.[/1]
Posted by Avee (Member # 16937) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Avee wrote:
You must be some small man who feels secure behind your computer screen. I hope you don't run your mouth like that in real life especially when dealing with black men you would get a beat down all the time. Posted by Bob_01 (Member # 15687) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: only 13% of us have European ancestry. [i]
Research Articles The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans Sarah A. Tishkoff,1,2,* Floyd A. Reed,1,, Françoise R. Friedlaender,3, Christopher Ehret,4 Alessia Ranciaro,1,2,5, Alain Froment,6, Jibril B. Hirbo,1,2 Agnes A. Awomoyi,1,|| Jean-Marie Bodo,7 Ogobara Doumbo,8 Muntaser Ibrahim,9 Abdalla T. Juma,9 Maritha J. Kotze,10 Godfrey Lema,11 Jason H. Moore,12 Holly Mortensen,1,¶ Thomas B. Nyambo,11 Sabah A. Omar,13 Kweli Powell,1,# Gideon S. Pretorius,14 Michael W. Smith,15 Mahamadou A. Thera,8 Charles Wambebe,16 James L. Weber,17 Scott M. Williams18
Africa is the source of all modern humans, but characterization of genetic variation and of relationships among populations across the continent has been enigmatic. We studied 121 African populations, four African American populations, and 60 non-African populations for patterns of variation at 1327 nuclear microsatellite and insertion/deletion markers. We identified 14 ancestral population clusters in Africa that correlate with self-described ethnicity and shared cultural and/or linguistic properties. We observed high levels of mixed ancestry in most populations, reflecting historical migration events across the continent. Our data also provide evidence for shared ancestry among geographically diverse hunter-gatherer populations (Khoesan speakers and Pygmies). The ancestry of African Americans is predominantly from Niger-Kordofanian (~71%), European (~13%), and other African (~8%) populations, although admixture levels varied considerably among individuals. This study helps tease apart the complex evolutionary history of Africans and African Americans, aiding both anthropological and genetic epidemiologic studies.[/1]
xyyman wrote: -------------------------- only 13% of us have European ancestry. --------------------------
On what do you base this on? The same people you bitch and moan about "beez trine to take anjunct egipt way frum uz". Make up your mind dummy, they either lie or they don't. You can't have it both ways.
But I expect this kind of idiocy from you since you are one of the least intellectually gifted people on this forum. You just comment on what others say because you can't come up with an original thought on your own.
You are truly a dim bulb xyyman. The wattage from your brain couldn't even power a fire fly's rectum.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Commonsense blows the fantasies of the "they be mixed" crowd.
They expect someone to be dumb enough to believe that:
1. Ethnic groups that hated each other were having sex with each on a basis other than a rarity.
2. Members of an ethnic group that thought of a another ethnic group as satin incarnate and as cowards would have sex with members of that group other than a rarity.
3. Members of an Ethnic group that thought of a another ethnic group as subhumans would have sex with members of that group other than a rarity.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
If plantation owners and overseers were supposedly mixing with all of the "black" women, then isn't that a very limited pool of white men to be having sex with purportedly so many women? If that was the case shouldn't African Americans have very little diversity and look exactly the same? Afterall you're talking about a pool of anywhere from 1 to 6 white men on a plantation some of whom are directly related to each other. Western European whites have very little phenotypical and genetic diversity. Its even less when you focus in on family members.
The ship of "they be mixed" is sinking fast.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
There is a problematic assumption that all mixing was due to slave master and slave. The fact that there were laws passed to prevent "mixing" and the fact that any amount of "black blood" was a social stigma would suggest that most of this went on between poor whites and blacks.
The elite are the ones that make the laws, the elite are the ones that want to divide people by white and black. The law is used to control the poor and prevent poor blacks and whites from mixing. The whole poor "white trash" racist kind of people are a product of social stigmas created by the elite
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
"The East Africa Protectorate" By Charles Eliot 1905
quote:Such conditions occur elsewhere between races who are more or less on the same footing, as, for instance, Europeans and Chinese, but they are probably not found united in any other case where one race is so indisputably inferior. In Australia, New Zealand, and Tasmania the native race tends to disappear, or has disappeared altogether. In the Spanish and Portuguese parts of America a hybrid race has been formed. In North America the Indian tends to disappear, but also to some extent mingles with the whites, and a strain of Indian blood is not, like negro blood, regarded as a disgrace. Nearly all the races of modern Europe and Asia are the result of fusions between conquerors and conquered, and the weaker elements have been eliminated by slaughter or breeding, or by both combined. But the African has hitherto shown no sign, either in his own continent or in America, of yielding to either process
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
markellion,
Nobody is even reading your posts.
Therefor shut up before I kick you in your *snap-on* testicles.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
There were slaves who escaped slavery because they were able to pass for white. With this being the case why would they bypass other parts of the world, the rest of Africa, and especially north africa for slaves?
Using commonsense if people who could pass for white were slaves, then there is no reason to believe that north africans would not have been brought to the americas. Most of them do not look white, and even the odd few who do would still have been brought over due to the fact that there slaves who could pass for white in America. As a matter of fact those north africans who resemble whites were probably those slaves in America.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: and even the odd few who may would still have been brought over due to the fact that there slaves who could pass for white in America. As a matter of fact those north africans who resemble whites were probably those slaves in America.
Yes but the other factor you are ignoring is that there was the one drop rule. This, as I pointed out, was a way to keep the lower classes divided. The mixing would be mostly between poor folk
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Your response is incoherent and irrelevant by way of historical documentation.
Now go away before I stomp on your *snap-on* testicles.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
The elite created the one drop rule. If the elite wanted mixing they would have not made laws against it. Therefor it must have been a way to control the lower classes (since the law is a way to control the poor) so the bulk of the mixing was between the lower classes.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
To put people with "one drop" of white blood into slavery meant keeping the races divided. It would prevent family connections or anything between the "blacks" and "whites"
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
TruthAndRights gave information on this in thread: "Late 18th and 19th century slave imports into the United States"
The one drop rule would obviously be a sentence of life slavery to all children born from "race mixing"
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights: Greetings. Race-mixing in the U.S. was going on prior to slavery; and contrary to popular beLIEf, a good part of it was 'White' women and Black men because prior to the 'White' man elevating the 'White' woman to some imagined pedestal, he worked her right along with the Black servants- they lived and worked together so it's only natural that other things would follow as Nature knows no 'color line'.... As a matter of FACT the first anti-miscegenation laws were SPECIFICALLY to keep 'White' men and women away from Black men and women- ESPECIALLY the 'White' women; lol, 'White' men were NOT happy with the way the English women seemed to prefer Black men back then! Not just a few 'White' people were willing to end up whipped or jailed or made a slave for life as punishment for their love and/or marriage, etc., of a Black Man/Woman. This is just the very very short version of it....oh, and a good source of this info is Lerone Bennett's BEFORE THE MAYFLOWER-
Lerone Bennett, Jr.'s BEFORE THE MAYFLOWER A HISTORY OF BLACK AMERICA, Chapter 10 Red, White and Black: Race and Sex pp273-299.
htp.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Folks pay no attention to markellion. Nothing he says socialogically makes sense. He wants you to believe that people who ranked low in society pole wanted to be ranked even lower.
Maybe markellion should take the time he spends obsessing Africans and concentrate on graduating jr. high school.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: There were slaves who escaped slavery because they were able to pass for white.
Their was a concept amongst the Nazis about pure blood and the Nazis actually borrowed many of their racial ideas from the United States. This is where the one drop rule comes into play. The one drop rule is just what it says, one drop means slavery for life
"Free Trade, The Confederacy, and the Political Economy of Slavery"
"During this campaign I have seen terrible instances of the horrors of slavery. I have seen men and women as white as the purest type of the Anglo-Saxon race in our army, who had been bought and sold like animals. I have looked upon the mutilated forms of black men who had suffered torture at the caprice of their cruel masters, and I have heard tales of woe too horrible for belief; but in all these cases I have never been so impressed with the degrading, demoralizing influence of this curse of slavery as in the presence of these South Carolinians. The higher classes represent the scum, and the lower the dregs of civilization. They are South Carolinians, not Americans."
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: He wants you to believe that people who ranked low in society pole wanted to be ranked even lower.
I said it was a punishment not that they would want to be lower in society. There was so much "mixing" going on that the elite passed strict laws and severe punishments against it. The very fact that the elite went to such extremes to prevent it does the more to prove that there was a great deal of mixing going on
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
This makes more sense when you consider that there wasn't a feeling of "white power" yet. That would have to develop later after the laws were already passed. The poor would have perceived the situation as us (poor) against them (rich). The rich were already oppressing everyone so the poor would already perceive dividing people by race as a way to oppress them even more
Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2:
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: un freggin believable! even when faced with facts, the Afronut will attempt to invoke his imaginary, self-created, self hate filled reality. YOU ARE WEST AFRICAN! GET OVER IT!
It's really sad and pathetic to witness the lenght this imbecile goes to so to deny his own west african ancestry.
argyle you need to stop with these anti-west african outbursts everytime genetic studies of AA's are posted here, it's getting tiresome, you just can't fight facts.
Recovering Afrocentrist, is Salsassin or Jaime Pretell. He is not Afro-American.
.
LOL You and Takruri see me in every shadow. Quite entertaining.
Posted by Chimu (Member # 15060) on :
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
