Part of the answer may lie in a new study that suggests Australian Aborigines and Europeans share the same roots—and that both emerged from a wave of African migrations more than 50,000 years ago.
Both populations can be traced back to the same founders, according to study co-author Toomas Kivisild of the University of Cambridge.
The finding may strike another nail into the coffin of the "multiregional" hypothesis—the idea humans evolved separately in different parts of the world.
The scientists took blood samples from modern Aborigines and Asian populations and compared their DNA. The researchers then traced the family tree backward through their mitochondrial DNA (the female lineage) and Y chromosome DNA (the male lineage).
All of the Australian lineages fell within four DNA branches, which are associated with the exodus of modern humans from Africa between 50,000 and 70,000 years ago.
As the theory suggests, Africans are believed to have migrated on foot to Eurasia, the large landmass where the European and Asian continents join. The descendants of these migrants may have been able to cross a land bridge between Australia and neighboring New Guinea when sea levels were lower 50,000 years ago (map of the region).
posted
Doug M - you are trying to split hairs, and not always successfully.
Speaking of the Australian Aborigines... Their culture and lifestyle is very similar to the San; so on a cultural basis they are still African.
Again on the Australian Aborigines; There is no evidence of genetic discontinuity after leaving Africa; on that basis they are still African.
It seems to me that the only category where they are NOT African, is in place where they live.
On modern Asians (North and South), and the Americans; it may be said that they are NOT Africans, because there is ample evidence of genetic admixture.
BUT; the Original people in these places WERE Africans, AND the people who brought admixture, were themselves simply Africans who had previously admixed with dissimilar (read White and Mongol) Africans in their previous place of habitation.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: Aboriginal: Ancestral, from nowhere else but that very land...
Blacks around the world are the aboriginal people of Africa that settled out into other parts of the world.
In other words, all aboriginal peoples of the earth are Africans.
Why is that such a difficult concept?
Formal Logic/ Deduction:
If X is Y and Y is X
then X and Y are the same!
Aboriginal blacks in Asia who have been there have been there as long as 50,000 years or more..... They are no longer Africans in a geographic, cultural or linguistic sense.
They are Asians and other Asians derive from them. .....
ALL humans come from Africa, therefore either ALL humans are Africans or only Africans are.
Yes aboriginal populations world wide maintain many features associated with the first OOA migrants, . ........
Therefore, if you can call aboriginal populations who have not been in Africa for thousands of years Africans, then all humans are Africans because they all originate in Africa thousands of years ago.
There are no "white aboriginals"? Did you ever ask why?
But there are black aboriginals? One people, yah?
Who all come from Africa? Yah...
Where they derived 50,000 years ago? Yah..
And they have certain common features? Yah...
And have so many cultural traits in common? Like drums, wood drums, similar art carvings, similar architecture and community landscapping, folk stories of origins from East Africa like the Fijians?
Boy, ask your father why there are no white aboriginals?
Since even you admit the fact that there are no white aboriginals then you know without even realizing it, the essential difference between your whites non-aboriginals and the Global Blacks, also called the Negritos, the Negros, the Maures, the Ancient African Diaspora.
All the global aboriginal blacks whom we know arise from Africa are Africans.
All your non-aboriginal pink-whites azzes...well go define yourselves...don't seek to attach to I.
You are non-aboriginal; and pink-white. You know where you come from. You know what I mean.
Lion!
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Part of the answer may lie in a new study that suggests Australian Aborigines and Europeans share the same roots—and that both emerged from a wave of African migrations more than 50,000 years ago
.....blah blah blah ......
All of the Australian lineages fell within four DNA branches, which are associated with the exodus of modern humans from Africa between 50,000 and 70,000 years ago.
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: Never seen an aboriginal pink-white one since I was born and I am here past forty. Show us the pictures, if you got em! Dare!
Lion!
Show you pictures of Europeans? As if you never saw one? Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: I believe this type is what he is talking about Lion...
But for some reason, he won't say it...
I wonder why...
Actually no, like I said Europeans are white and aboriginal to Europe I didnt say anything about Braziallian albinos.... Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Yes Mike I am talking about those early Europeans who ultimately are the ancestors of modern "white" Europeans...note the EUP clustering with recent Africans while the LUP and MES cluster more with recent Europeans which was caused by subsequent climatic adaptation to colder conditions. ....
Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins*1
Trenton W. Holliday
quote:This study tests these predictions via analyses of osteometric data reflective of trunk height and breadth, limb proportions and relative body mass for samples of Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP), Late Upper Paleolithic (LUP) and Mesolithic (MES) humans and 13 recent African and European populations. Results reveal a clear tendency for the EUP sample to cluster with recent Africans, while LUP and MES samples cluster with recent Europeans. These results refute the hypothesis of local continuity in Europe, and are consistent with an interpretation of elevated gene flow (and population dispersal?) from Africa, followed by subsequent climatic adaptation to colder conditions.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Mike do you know the difference between the study of cranio-metrics and osteology relating to tropical adaptations?
It seems as if you don't since the study I posted was talking about limb proportions in relation to tropical adaptation vs colder adaptation, and not how the populations cranio-facially looked.
Btw, Oceanic populations such as Australians and Melanesians resemble these early upper Paleolithic in Europe cranio-facially more than the Khoisan.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Mesolithic = 7000 B.C.
Gough's Cave 1 (Somerset, England): an assessment of body size and shape
TRENTON W. HOLLIDAY a1 and STEVEN E. CHURCHILL a2
Abstract
quote:Stature, body mass, and body proportions are evaluated for the Cheddar Man (Gough's Cave 1) skeleton. Like many of his Mesolithic contemporaries, Gough's Cave 1 evinces relatively short estimated stature (ca. 166.2 cm [5′ 5′]) and low body mass (ca. 66 kg [146 lbs]). In body shape, he is similar to recent Europeans for most proportional indices. He differs, however, from most recent Europeans in his high crural index and tibial length/trunk height indices. Thus, while Gough's Cave 1 is characterized by a total morphological pattern considered ‘cold-adapted’, these latter two traits may be interpreted as evidence of a large African role in the origins of anatomically modern Europeans.
Btw note that Cheddar man has a "white" European (cheddar man) descendant who lives not too far from where he was found!!
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kaizen - Aren't albinos as "original" as the black parents they come from?
As you know, Albinos are produced when two people who EACH carry the recessive gene mate (though it is known to happen when only one person carries it).
Normally, Albinos are careful to mate with people who have no history of Albinism, so as to produce normal offspring.
Because Whites are an ancient group of Albinos who for whatever reason "Inbred"; thus Permanently FIXING Albinism, and then subsequently admixed with normal people. But because the Albinism was Permanently fixed, they could not produce a fully normal-pigmented offspring like ordinary Albinos. They could only produce hybrid pigmentation.
Therefore they DO represent a unique NEW group of Humans, and thus they are assigned status as a Race.
And there are undoubtedly skeletons of these ancient White people in their homeland of "Central Asia". (White Mummies from about 2,000 B.C. have already been uncovered there).
But in order to fully investigate this, and lay their rightful claim to this heritage; White people would have to admit that their claim to a European heritage, and the bogus history that they manufactured in order to support that claim, was all a lie.
They do not seem to be ready to do that just yet.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: There are no "white aboriginals"? Did you ever ask why?
There are white aboriginals in Europe...
Hey mindless, I thought you argued against this? I thought your Asian derived blacks or whatever was aboriginal to Europe? Don't you remember or are you going to accuse others of misrepresenting your position again. You do this sort of thing every time you forget what you previously argued. LOL
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
As long as folks beleive in a concept called race and that it is based on phenotypes this will always be a circular argument..never mind that the original Africans who travelled to new lands encountered flora,fauna and different environments to inspire new thoughts and and ways of doing things commonly called "culture " and that some by whatever genetic means began to diverge from the original looks,but the ancestors of both Blacks and folks of other complexions share the same common OOA ancestors and if you are going to call one group Africans and the other group something else when both are more related to each other genetically than either is to Africans, makes little sense in singling out one but not the other.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: As long as folks beleive in a concept called race and that it is based on phenotypes this will always be a circular argument..never mind that the original Africans who travelled to new lands encountered flora,fauna and different environments to inspire new thoughts and and ways of doing things commonly called "culture " and that some by whatever genetic means began to diverge from the original looks,but the ancestors of both Blacks and folks of other complexions share the same common OOA ancestors and if you are going to call one group Africans and the other group something else when both are more related to each other genetically than either is to Africans, makes little sense in singling out one but not the other.
That sounds nice, but what does it mean really?
Do you really believe that an original Australian is closer related to a White person than they are to Africans - really?
If so, then you really need to take a reality pill and leave the White mans bullsh1t behind - I mean that IS where such nonsense comes from - isn't it.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Do you really believe that an original Australian is closer related to a White person than they are to Africans - really?
Wow, you're slow, and you'll never learn. Too bad you're going to die as an ignorant fool in fantasy land...hopefully though nobody is dumb enough to follow in your footsteps. Well, atleast Brada Anansi won't!!
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Do you really believe that an original Australian is closer related to a White person than they are to Africans - really?
Wow, you're slow, and you'll never learn. Too bad you're going to die as an ignorant fool in fantasy land...hopefully though nobody is dumb enough to follow in your footsteps. Well, atleast Brada Anansi won't!!
You write innuendos in indirect speech forms because you have no arguments. You have only indoctrinations and brainwashing to go with. Use your eyes, use your head, tell your wicked heart the truth...
How can a black Australian Aboriginal be more related to a pink-white scottish Australian alien than to a black African Aboriginal?
How can African aboriginals be more related to pink-white scottish Afrikanner aliens than to their fellow black Australian aboriginal?
You and the rest of your genetics sucking gang can take it and shove it up the right place.
Your pink-white KKK australian brothers who fight aboriginal blacks in Africa, Americas and Australia know the reason why they do so?
We are still waiting for the picture of the pink-white aboriginal in Europe or in Canaan.
Where are the pink-white aboriginals?
Where are you from? You know who you are!!! Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do Greeks carry African genetic material?.. say Benin Hbs? Africans and other north Meds to they now look anything alike for the most part?
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: There are no "white aboriginals"? Did you ever ask why?
There are white aboriginals in Europe...
The first people in Europe were not white. Therefore whites cannot be aboriginal as aboriginal means first.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Part of the answer may lie in a new study that suggests Australian Aborigines and Europeans share the same roots—and that both emerged from a wave of African migrations more than 50,000 years ago
.....blah blah blah ......
All of the Australian lineages fell within four DNA branches, which are associated with the exodus of modern humans from Africa between 50,000 and 70,000 years ago.
So show us a picture of a "pink-white" aboriginal?
Show us that picture and done the argument!!!
You know who you are...
Lion!
Simply put, if Aborigines have been outside of Europe for 50,000 years HOW are they Africans?
They have NOT been in Africa since then.
There has been to travel back and forth between Australia and Africa since then.
They have not maintained any connection with Africa since then.
So how are they African? Skin color and features are environmental. That is not unique to Africa even though black skin first arose in Africa.
And what PHYSICAL resemblance do they have to Africans other than being black?
Show me an African population that looks like Australian aborigines. For that matter, show me a population in Africa that looks like a aboriginal New Guinean.
The point is that you calling them African is over simplifying the LONG HISTORY that has separated the two populations. If you are going to call people from Australia who have not been in Africa for 60,000 years or more, then ALL humans must be called Africans because all humans have been outside of Africa for about the same time frame.
Features are due to environment and black skin is a function of environment. Black skin is not an African phenomena in so much as it is a tropical phenomena. Africa happens to straddle the tropics and the first humans were born in a tropical environment and therefore have black skin and are tropically adapted. Populations in similar environments outside of Africa maintained those features because of the environment.
But again, don't get it twisted, all aboriginal populations around the world were originally black due to the features they inherited from their ancient African ancestors. However, their descendants cannot simply be called African because their ancestors came from Africa 60,000 years ago and because they have tropical adaptation.
The point is that if you ask an Aboriginal Australian if they were African or not, I doubt very much that the answer would be yes.
Whether you call them African because of their skin color is irrelevant to this. Biologically ALL humans are Africans and that is the bottom line, black or white has nothing to do with it from a biological perspective. Australian aborigines are not more biologically African than non aborigines as the underlying biology shared by ALL humans arose in Africa and therefore is African. In fact the only difference between the aboriginal populations of the world and the modern populations is primarily skin color, the rest of the features were mostly already there. That is the point of the aborigines of Australia who are closer to the aboriginal Europeans and other populations originally looked like. The change in skin color is a relatively trivial change that does not undermine the fundamental facts of biology. A child can't NOT BE a descendant of the father. If the father was African and the son and daughter were aborigines and the children of the aborigines is everyone else, they are still African.
And don't get me wrong. I do feel that black populations of the world should stand up and fight the scourge of white supremacy. Don't make any doubt about it. I also feel that before anyone goes anywhere and calls anyone AFRICAN as a term of conscious connection to Africa, THEY TOO MUST FIRST BE CONSCIOUS.
It makes no sense to be worried about australian aborigines being African when most Africans are disunited, misled and oppressed by the claws of white supremacy and neocolonialism. It makes no sense to be calling ancient native americans African if African Americans don't even consider themselves African AND aren't conscious of who they are AS AFRICANS. If AFRICANS don't understand who they are then what is the point of calling people OUTSIDE of Africa Africans? From that perspective, it is better to clean YOUR OWN house and get it right before worrying about everyone else. I would worry more about Africans standing up and identifying as Africans with all the economic, political and social economic implications of such a stance before worrying about blacks world wide identifying as Africans.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Definition of delusional: Psychiatry. a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason.
Example of Doug being delusional in denying a fact he recognizes – i.e. Negroids are African. Doug writes:
Bottom line … All dark skinned people (this is Dougie’s trick as we didn’t mention dark-skinned people but those with woolly hair and full facial features as Africans. Substitute phenotype for his dark-skinned people) are not African, whether or not they look Negroid or not."
[Marc writes] I for one am interested in identifying Africans in the historical sense of noting those who began civilizations worldwide. I’m not all that concerned with populations after 1500 AD. Having said that, to deal with folks like Dougie Boy, I note: If folks are dark-skinned with straight hair (i.e. not wiry and Australians have wiry hair) they aren’t phenotypically African.
[Doug the delusional racist writes]: Calling someone African only means they originate in the continent of Africa.
[Marc writes]: Wrong, Dougie Boy. It doesn’t only mean they originate in the continent of Africa. Ever hear of the stative definition (of course you have but you pretend it doesn’t exist). It allows for one word with different meanings as bad meaning both “not good” as well as (in Michael Jackson’s album by the same name) good.
To get to our definition of African, by the way (for the third time), here is the definition of definition:
A definition is a formal passage describing the meaning of a term (a word or phrase). Terms have different meanings in different contexts. A stipulative definition explains the speaker's immediate intentional meaning.
Here is my stipulative definition of the word "African."
African:A person, such as the aborigine of Australia, with woolly or wiry hair and full facial features who have given the world its civilzations though those coming after while carrying those civilizations on have disenfranchised and subjugated such persons.
In not recogning Africans outside of Africa, Dougie has carved-out a nice little world he has self-defined as a place he can feel safe and cozy in. But, it doesn’t exist in reality. Only in his head like a hallucination or illusion.
[Another example of Doug’s delusionalism and irrationalism. IronLion gives a bit of logic our dear Doug can’t stomach:
Aboriginal: Ancestral, from nowhere else but that very land...
Blacks around the world are the aboriginal people of Africa that settled out into other parts of the world.
In other words, all aboriginal peoples of the earth are Africans.
Why is that such a difficult concept?
Formal Logic/ Deduction:
If X is Y and Y is X
then X and Y are the same!
Sir Douglas, Africa here isn’t constrained geographically and doesn’t apply to country of origin but physical appearance. But, you’ve heard that dozens of times and deny it which is why you are delusional. Again, people of the ancient world with some combination of woolly / wiry hair and full facial features who formed world civilization and were, by phenotype, African. These are the examples:
You deny the above but where is your evidence to the contrary but your delusional words and senseless arguments?
[Doug writes]:
Aboriginal blacks in Asia who have been there have been there as long as 50,000 years or more [and] are no longer Africans in a geographic, cultural or linguistic sense.
[Marc writes]: Continents and countries are things that have only recently been given names (from between 3000 years ago and the Middle Ages). The concept of Asia was Egyptian identifying places to the East of them and had nothing to do with race. The continent of Africa is a relatively recent name given after whites migrated to Southern and Western Europe mostly after the 5th century AD.
Nations in Africa were given names mostly in the 19th century by whites carving-out resources and wealth-havens for themselves. America only known from the West since Chris Columbus got lost and found his way back home.
So, your concept of people being who they are because of where they are is hopelessly flawed and is also a product of the shenanigans of some really racist, bad people who used the world for their own power and glory. And, yes Australians have been there a long time and not 50,000 years like you say but, as most researchers say, but 60,000 years. [For instance, see: Art in Australia, 60,000 Years Ago, http://discovermagazine.com/1997/jan/artinaustralia601027 ]
MOSTLY THE ONLY TRIBAL NAMES AUSTRALIAN TRIBES HAVE IS AFRICAN TRIBAL NAMES
Every tribal name seen below is found in:
George Peter Murdock, Africa – its peoples and their cultural history, (McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1959). An Australian researcher wrote another book the Australian names came from:
But, they are also found in Australia, China, and otherwise in the Far East showing the ancestors of today’s population in those places even from 60,000 years ago, was African. It’s pretty exciting information. Read:
AUSTRALIA
The following paired tribal names are in an African/Australian order. Keep in mind that the books nams arose from were two different men at two different times on two different continents: Anna/Anna, Bemba/Bemba, Goa/Goa, Gogo/Gogo, Jang/Jang, Jawara/Jawara (Adaman Islands), Koko/Koko, Kuri/Kuri, Madi/Madi-Madi, Maori/Maori (New Zealand), Mau/Mau, Mau/Maui (Hawaii), Meru/Meru, Munga/Munga, Nana/Nana, Ngala/Ngala, Ngumbu/Ngumbu, Ngundi/Ngundi, Njao/Njao, Nyamba/Nyamba, Tura/Tura, Waka/Waka, Woga/Woga, Yang/Yang, Yao/Yao.
Several near duplicates in the order of African/Australian here follow: Ngaga/Ngadja, Ngalaga/ Ngalagan, Ngama/Ngamadi, Ngamatak/ Ngamatta, Ngan/Ngan:a, Nganda/Nganadjara, Ngiri/ Ngirla, Ngoal/Ngoala, Ngolo/ Ngolok, Ngombe/Ngombaru, Ngoni/Ngonde, Ngulu/ Ngulubulu and Nguludjara, Nguru/Nguro, Njamus/Njamat, Njanja/Njana, Njungene/Njung, Nyamang/Nyamba. In the 60,000 years Africans have been in Australia the tribal names remained intact.
CHINA An example of Chinese family names that are identical to African: Dui, Doo, Fang, Ga, Gao, Ge, Ha, Jang, Jen, Kim, Kir.
Dougie. Let’s have some fun. Before I wrote that you were boring and in a sense, it’s really true. But, your thinking is mindboggling. You wrote,
Aboriginal blacks in Asia who have been there have been there as long as 50,000 years or more [and] are no longer Africans in a geographic, cultural or linguistic sense.
Let’s see if I understand you. As your “aborigines” have been long gone from Africa and some things have changed (though Iron Lion and Mike have given a good list of things found in Australia that exist in Africa), that geographic (gosh, we note that, don’t we?) cultural, or linguist things changed.
Hummmm. Weeellll. What about Caucasians who live outside the homeland of whites on the Russian Steppes who today have different languages, culture, and linguistics. What do you call whites in France, Canada, America, Scandinavia who all have different languages, cultures, or linguistics?
Again. African:A person, such as the aborigine of Australia, with woolly or wiry hair and full facial features who have given the world its civilzations though those coming after while carrying those civilizations on have disenfranchised and subjugated such persons.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:How can African aboriginals be more related to pink-white scottish Afrikanner aliens than to their fellow black Australian aboriginal?
I know that it sounds counter intuitive..one should think that the closer one looked like the other the closer they should be..genetically but DNA says different..the only way to over come this arguement is to throw out the DNA evidence all together..and guys please remember Euraisa lays only twenty+miles at it's closest point from Africa so we are indeed geographically closer than says Austrailians and other Blacks far to the east.
One more thing just because we might be genetically more distant does not mean we are not or cannot be socially or politically close black is still black and after all we do suffer the same or similar kinds of abuse at the hands of others.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
Definition of delusional: Psychiatry. a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason.
Example of Doug being delusional in denying a fact he recognizes – i.e. Negroids are African. Doug writes:
Bottom line … All dark skinned people (this is Dougie’s trick as we didn’t mention dark-skinned people but those with woolly hair and full facial features as Africans. Substitute phenotype for his dark-skinned people) are not African, whether or not they look Negroid or not."
[Marc writes] I for one am interested in identifying Africans in the historical sense of noting those who began civilizations worldwide. I’m not all that concerned with populations after 1500 AD. Having said that, to deal with folks like Dougie Boy, I note: If folks are dark-skinned with straight hair (i.e. not wiry and Australians have wiry hair) they aren’t phenotypically African.
[Doug the delusional racist writes]: Calling someone African only means they originate in the continent of Africa.
[Marc writes]: Wrong, Dougie Boy. It doesn’t only mean they originate in the continent of Africa. Ever hear of the stative definition (of course you have but you pretend it doesn’t exist). It allows for one word with different meanings as bad meaning both “not good” as well as (in Michael Jackson’s album by the same name) good.
To get to our definition of African, by the way (for the third time), here is the definition of definition:
A definition is a formal passage describing the meaning of a term (a word or phrase). Terms have different meanings in different contexts. A stipulative definition explains the speaker's immediate intentional meaning.
Here is my stipulative definition of the word "African."
African:A person, such as the aborigine of Australia, with woolly or wiry hair and full facial features who have given the world its civilzations though those coming after while carrying those civilizations on have disenfranchised and subjugated such persons.
In not recogning Africans outside of Africa, Dougie has carved-out a nice little world he has self-defined as a place he can feel safe and cozy in. But, it doesn’t exist in reality. Only in his head like a hallucination or illusion.
[Another example of Doug’s delusionalism and irrationalism. IronLion gives a bit of logic our dear Doug can’t stomach:
Aboriginal: Ancestral, from nowhere else but that very land...
Blacks around the world are the aboriginal people of Africa that settled out into other parts of the world.
In other words, all aboriginal peoples of the earth are Africans.
Why is that such a difficult concept?
Formal Logic/ Deduction:
If X is Y and Y is X
then X and Y are the same!
Sir Douglas, Africa here isn’t constrained geographically and doesn’t apply to country of origin but physical appearance. But, you’ve heard that dozens of times and deny it which is why you are delusional. Again, people of the ancient world with some combination of woolly / wiry hair and full facial features who formed world civilization and were, by phenotype, African. These are the examples:
You deny the above but where is your evidence to the contrary but your delusional words and senseless arguments?
[Doug writes]:
Aboriginal blacks in Asia who have been there have been there as long as 50,000 years or more [and] are no longer Africans in a geographic, cultural or linguistic sense.
[Marc writes]: Continents and countries are things that have only recently been given names (from between 3000 years ago and the Middle Ages). The concept of Asia was Egyptian identifying places to the East of them and had nothing to do with race. The continent of Africa is a relatively recent name given after whites migrated to Southern and Western Europe mostly after the 5th century AD.
Nations in Africa were given names mostly in the 19th century by whites carving-out resources and wealth-havens for themselves. America only known from the West since Chris Columbus got lost and found his way back home.
So, your concept of people being who they are because of where they are is hopelessly flawed and is also a product of the shenanigans of some really racist, bad people who used the world for their own power and glory. And, yes Australians have been there a long time and not 50,000 years like you say but, as most researchers say, but 60,000 years. [For instance, see: Art in Australia, 60,000 Years Ago, http://discovermagazine.com/1997/jan/artinaustralia601027 ]
MOSTLY THE ONLY TRIBAL NAMES AUSTRALIAN TRIBES HAVE IS AFRICAN TRIBAL NAMES
Every tribal name seen below is found in:
George Peter Murdock, Africa – its peoples and their cultural history, (McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1959). An Australian researcher wrote another book the Australian names came from:
But, they are also found in Australia, China, and otherwise in the Far East showing the ancestors of today’s population in those places even from 60,000 years ago, was African. It’s pretty exciting information. Read:
AUSTRALIA
The following paired tribal names are in an African/Australian order. Keep in mind that the books nams arose from were two different men at two different times on two different continents: Anna/Anna, Bemba/Bemba, Goa/Goa, Gogo/Gogo, Jang/Jang, Jawara/Jawara (Adaman Islands), Koko/Koko, Kuri/Kuri, Madi/Madi-Madi, Maori/Maori (New Zealand), Mau/Mau, Mau/Maui (Hawaii), Meru/Meru, Munga/Munga, Nana/Nana, Ngala/Ngala, Ngumbu/Ngumbu, Ngundi/Ngundi, Njao/Njao, Nyamba/Nyamba, Tura/Tura, Waka/Waka, Woga/Woga, Yang/Yang, Yao/Yao.
Several near duplicates in the order of African/Australian here follow: Ngaga/Ngadja, Ngalaga/ Ngalagan, Ngama/Ngamadi, Ngamatak/ Ngamatta, Ngan/Ngan:a, Nganda/Nganadjara, Ngiri/ Ngirla, Ngoal/Ngoala, Ngolo/ Ngolok, Ngombe/Ngombaru, Ngoni/Ngonde, Ngulu/ Ngulubulu and Nguludjara, Nguru/Nguro, Njamus/Njamat, Njanja/Njana, Njungene/Njung, Nyamang/Nyamba. In the 60,000 years Africans have been in Australia the tribal names remained intact.
CHINA An example of Chinese family names that are identical to African: Dui, Doo, Fang, Ga, Gao, Ge, Ha, Jang, Jen, Kim, Kir.
Dougie. Let’s have some fun. Before I wrote that you were boring and in a sense, it’s really true. But, your thinking is mindboggling. You wrote,
Aboriginal blacks in Asia who have been there have been there as long as 50,000 years or more [and] are no longer Africans in a geographic, cultural or linguistic sense.
Let’s see if I understand you. As your “aborigines” have been long gone from Africa and some things have changed (though Iron Lion and Mike have given a good list of things found in Australia that exist in Africa), that geographic (gosh, we note that, don’t we?) cultural, or linguist things changed.
Hummmm. Weeellll. What about Caucasians who live outside the homeland of whites on the Russian Steppes who today have different languages, culture, and linguistics. What do you call whites in France, Canada, America, Scandinavia who all have different languages, cultures, or linguistics?
Again. African:A person, such as the aborigine of Australia, with woolly or wiry hair and full facial features who have given the world its civilzations though those coming after while carrying those civilizations on have disenfranchised and subjugated such persons.
. .
This is especially for you Marc and Iron Lion:
The point is that if you ask an Aboriginal Australian if they were African or not, I doubt very much that the answer would be yes.
If you asked them whether they were black or not I am SURE the answer would be yes. Africa does not have ANY more meaning to them than it does to a non black Asian as they have not been in Africa for thousands of years. If the cultural traits they have originated in Africa then ALL non Africans are Africans because all NON AFRICANS have the same traits as well.
Whether you call them African because of their skin color is irrelevant to this. Biologically ALL humans are Africans and that is the bottom line, black or white has nothing to do with it from a biological perspective. Australian aborigines are not more biologically African than non aborigines as the underlying biology shared by ALL humans arose in Africa and therefore is African. In fact the only difference between the aboriginal populations of the world and the modern populations is primarily skin color, the rest of the features were mostly already there. That is the point of the aborigines of Australia who are closer to what the aboriginal Europeans and other populations originally looked like. The change in skin color is a relatively trivial change that does not undermine the fundamental facts of biology. A child can't NOT BE a descendant of the father. If the father was African and the son and daughter were aborigines and the children of the aborigines is everyone else, they are still African.
The problem with YOUR logic is that if the child of the aboriginal son and daughter are light skinned, they somehow still aren't biologically African. That is dumb. Where did their genes and everything else come from if not Africa? White skin does not change that. From your photo album above, note that the people in row 2 you call non Africans are descendants of the people in row 1 you call Africans. So how are they not Africans biologically? Skin color is not human biology Marc. It is one ASPECT of the biology of humans that arose in Africa, the COMPLETE biology of all humans arose in Africa and actually goes back millions of years in Africa to the earliest primate ancestors in Africa.
Basically you are applying the tactics of the Europeans in reverse, claiming skin color as the supreme trait of biology in identifying populations. ALL humans are Africans biologically. Differences in phenotype are primarily a result of environmental factors among blacks and non blacks, which does not change the facts above. What separates populations are based primarily social and cultural factors NOT biological ones.
And don't get me wrong. I do feel that black populations of the world should stand up and fight the scourge of white supremacy. Don't make any doubt about it. I also feel that before anyone goes anywhere and calls anyone AFRICAN as a term of conscious connection to Africa, THEY TOO MUST FIRST BE CONSCIOUS.
It makes no sense to be worried about australian aborigines being African when most Africans are disunited, misled and oppressed by the claws of white supremacy and neocolonialism. It makes no sense to be calling ancient native Americans African if African Americans don't even consider themselves African AND aren't conscious of who they are AS AFRICANS. If AFRICANS don't understand who they are then what is the point of calling people OUTSIDE of Africa Africans? From that perspective, it is better to clean YOUR OWN house and get it right before worrying about everyone else. I would worry more about Africans standing up and identifying as Africans with all the economic, political and social economic implications of such a stance before worrying about blacks world wide identifying as Africans.Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The problem with YOUR logic is that if the child of the aboriginal son and daughter are light skinned, they somehow still aren't biologically African ... Skin color is not human biology Marc.
[Marc writes]
I said nothing about light-skinned / dark-skinned issues and NOTHING ABOUT BIOLOGY. This is all a hallucination, all an illusion in your head.
I wrote:
Definition of delusional: Psychiatry. a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason.
Example of Doug being delusional in denying a fact he recognizes – i.e. Negroids are African. Doug writes:
Bottom line … All dark skinned people (this is Dougie’s trick as we didn’t mention dark-skinned people but those with woolly hair and full facial features as Africans. Substitute phenotype for his dark-skinned people) are not African, whether or not they look Negroid or not."
[Marc writes] I for one am interested in identifying Africans in the historical sense of noting those who began civilizations worldwide. I’m not all that concerned with populations after 1500 AD. Having said that, to deal with folks like Dougie Boy, I note: If folks are dark-skinned with straight hair (i.e. not wiry and Australians have wiry hair) they aren’t phenotypically African.
This is another example of you being delusional seeing things that don't exist and denying realities that do.
Again, you are to be praised for your great humanity and love of aborigines. Praised for your flickr pictures.
Want to do something relevant? Get the whites out of Australia and South Africa that have made life so miserable for the (by phenotype) Africans that live there in poverty while the newcomers live in stolen wealth.
Other than that, you are commendable in your benevolence. Our Ghandi of the day.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Iron Lion
quote:How can African aboriginals be more related to pink-white scottish Afrikanner aliens than to their fellow black Australian aboriginal?
I know that it sounds counter intuitive..one should think that the closer one looked like the other the closer they should be..genetically but DNA says different..the only way to over come this arguement is to throw out the DNA evidence all together..and guys please remember Euraisa lays only twenty+miles at it's closest point from Africa so we are indeed geographically closer than says Austrailians and other Blacks far to the east.
One more thing just because we might be genetically more distant does not mean we are not or cannot be socially or politically close black is still black and after all we do suffer the same or similar kinds of abuse at the hands of others.
Brada-Anansi - I did ask you if you REALLY understood what the White mans Bullsh1t means.
Your answer says that you do not. But not to worry, that is why you have your Uncle Mike. Uncle Mike will explain.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brada-Anansi - Before Uncle Mike explains; We must first go over the Basics.
DNA confirms Aboriginal Australian origins Tuesday, 8 May 2007
by Hamish Clarke Cosmos Online DNA confirms Aboriginal Australian origins
SYDNEY: Australian Aborigines descend from the same lineage as the first modern humans to migrate from Africa, DNA analysis has confirmed. The find is a further blow to the idea that the evolution of indigenous Australians was marked by many migrations from Asia.
Their analysis showed that DNA from people in New Guinea and aboriginal Australians could be traced back to early branches of the human phylogenetic tree, associated with the first humans to leave Africa 50,000 - 70,000 years ago. The study is revealed today in the U.S. journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The DNA analysis also revealed very little gene flow into Australia and New Guinea in the 50,000 or so years since the initial migration. Australians evolved in relative isolation compared to other parts of the Indian Ocean, which were subject to much more genetic mixing, said the study authors. This in turn suggests that developments in language and tool use were not influenced by outside sources, they said.
Haplogroup A (the Khoisan aka San Bushman; Because many San have the Slanty eyes, this lineage is likely the source of the Mongols).
Haplogroup A is found mainly in the Southern Nile region and Southern Africa. However at lower frequencies M91 is found in many areas of Africa, from Morocco, Egypt to Cameroon. Outside of Africa it has been detected in Caucasian males in England, and in the Eastern Mediterranean regions of Anatolia, Levant and Southern Arabia.
Haplogroup A represents one of two deep branches in the Y-chromosomal family tree, the other currently known as Haplogroup BT, therefore the lineage began evolving shortly after the time of Y-chromosomal Adam.
Haplogroup C; (Australians)
Haplogroup C seems to have come into existence shortly after SNP mutation M168 occurred for the first time, bringing the modern Haplogroup CT into existence, from which Haplogroup CF, and in turn Haplogroup C, derived. This was probably at least 60,000 years before present. Although Haplogroup C attains its highest frequencies among the indigenous populations of Mongolia, the Russian Far East, Polynesia, Australia, and at moderate frequency in the Korean Peninsula and among the Manchus, it displays its highest diversity among modern populations of India, and therefore it is hypothesized that Haplogroup C either originated or underwent its longest period of evolution and diversification within India or the greater South Asian coastal region.
It represents a great coastal migration along Southern Asia, into Southeast Asia and Australia, and up the Asian coast. It is believed to have migrated to the Americas some 6,000-8,000 years before present, and was carried by Na-Dené speaking peoples into the northwest Pacific coast of America. Some have hypothesized that Haplogroups C and D were brought together to East Asia by a single population that became the first successful modern human colonizers of that region, but at present the distributions of Haplogroups C and D are different, with various subtypes of Haplogroup C being found at high frequency among the Australian aborigines, Polynesians, Vietnamese, Kazakhs, Mongolians, Manchurians, Koreans, and indigenous inhabitants of the Russian Far East and at moderate frequencies elsewhere throughout Asia and Oceania, including India and Southeast Asia, whereas Haplogroup D is found at high frequencies only among the Tibetans, Japanese peoples, and Andaman Islanders, and has been found neither in India nor among the aboriginal inhabitants of the Americas or Oceania.
Haplogroup D (Non-Mongol Blacks; the Albinos may have been a part of this group).
Haplogroup D is believed to have originated in Asia some 60,000 years before present. While haplogroup D along with haplogroup E contains the distinctive YAP polymorphism (which indicates their common ancestry), no haplogroup D chromosomes have been found anywhere outside of Asia.
Like haplogroup C, D is believed to represent the Great Coastal Migration along southern Asia, from Arabia to Southeast Asia and thence northward to populate East Asia. It is found today at high frequency among populations in Tibet, the Japanese archipelago, and the Andaman Islands, though curiously not in India.
Haplogroup R (Whites - please note that these are the youngest Humans, and the most derived from other groups). See chart below.
This haplogroup is believed to have arisen around 26,800 years ago, somewhere in Central Asia or South Asia, where its ancestor Haplogroup P is most often found at polymorphic frequencies.
The R haplogroup is common throughout Europe and western Asia and the Indian sub-continent, and in those whose ancestry is from within these regions. It also occurs in North and Sub-Saharan Africa. The distribution is markedly different for the two major subclades R1a and R1b.
Haplogroup R1a is typical in populations of Eastern Europe and parts of Central Europe. R1a has a significant presence in Northern Europe, South and Central Asia (including Iran), Siberia, as well as India. R1a can be found in low frequencies in the Middle East
Haplogroup R1b predominates in Western Europe. R1b can be found at low frequency in Central Asia and in the Middle East, as well as North Africa. There is an isolated pocket of R1b in Sub Saharan Africa.
Human Y-chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) haplogroups (by ethnic groups · famous haplotypes) most recent common Y-ancestor | A BT | B CT | CF DE | | C F D E | G H IJK | IJ K | | I J L MNOPS T | M NO P S | | N O Q R = (Whites)Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
N O Q R = (Whites) It includes the ancestors that would become whites . And how is what you posted conflicts with I have been saying??..I am also well awhere that Europe was the second to last place to be colonized by modern us the very last is supposed to be the America's, the question that was raised is, is there closer genetic links between Africans and relatively near by Europeans than between Africans more distant eastern Blacks.
Your answer is:
quote:Haplogroup R (Whites - please note that these are the youngest Humans, and the most derived from other groups). See chart below.
Of which I asked earlier do the Greeks and other meds carry African genetic material such as Benin hbs gene..meaning they were in contact with such folks, and the Camaroonians may well have the 1st dibs on R but i am not prepared to argue that.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
the only people who are african are those who live in africa. Neither race nor culture makes someone an african.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Iron Lion
quote:How can African aboriginals be more related to pink-white scottish Afrikanner aliens than to their fellow black Australian aboriginal?
I know that it sounds counter intuitive..one should think that the closer one looked like the other the closer they should be..genetically but DNA says different..the only way to over come this arguement is to throw out the DNA evidence all together..and guys please remember Euraisa lays only twenty+miles at it's closest point from Africa so we are indeed geographically closer than says Austrailians and other Blacks far to the east.
One more thing just because we might be genetically more distant does not mean we are not or cannot be socially or politically close black is still black and after all we do suffer the same or similar kinds of abuse at the hands of others.
Brada-Anasi
Much respect for the I. Seen.
But I man don't think inside the box. I over-stand, InI don't "understand".
This knowledge is straight and simple,. All them Pink geneticists like Dr. Underhill, Dr Sforza, Dr Gallo are all active closet racists from the same said tribe of Pink-Racists. Why?
Do you think they have some information they are not sharing with you?
Dr. Underhill is a racist, Dr. Sforza-Cavili is a racist, check their private lives and their inner murmurings; All, Dr Keita is one wannabe Tiger-Wood like apparition, who loves institutional success more than common sense.
Do you think they have some information they are not sharing with you?
I am an attorney by profession, I put Doctors in witness boxes and prove their lies and biases to them.
No bullshit.
Lion!
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: There are no "white aboriginals"? Did you ever ask why?
There are white aboriginals in Europe...
The first people in Europe were not white. Therefore whites cannot be aboriginal as aboriginal means first.
They descend from the first people in Europe...which makes them as aboriginal to Europe as an aborigine in Australia.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
OMG mindless, I thought it was a temporary memory lapse on your part or something but you really are going to begin to argue now that whites are aboriginal to Europe!!!!! So after all your denials you now come full circle to back Bowcock's racist junk approach: northern European sample, the "Caucasians of European descent", were chosen because they represented the aboriginal population there!!! Wow, mindless you really did good for yourself!
posted
Brada-Anansi - As you can see from this chart;
Australian Aborigines definitely do NOT cluster closer with White people than they do with Africans.
But they do cluster with a lot of Asians and SOME BLACKS of EUROPE, Simply because those people are partially derived from the haplogroup "C" people who STAYED IN ASIA - AND some who went directly North to Europe from within Africa!!
NOT THE AUSTRALIAN haplogroup "C" people.
Pay special NOTE;
When these people left Africa.. ALL of their Kind did NOT leave Africa... ONLY SOME!!!
Their relatives who stayed behind in Africa were free to migrate North if they wanted to!
Human Y-chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) haplogroups (by ethnic groups · famous haplotypes) most recent common Y-ancestor | A BT (original Africans) | B CT (Australians) | CF DE | | C F D E (Asians, Africans, Europeans - derived) | G H IJK | IJ K | | I J L MNOPS T | M NO P S | | N O Q "R" = (Whites)
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
QUOTE]Originally posted by xyyman: This is interesting - - -
So much for the white-skinned-half-naked-loin-cloth-bearing AE seen on National Geographic. But wait. . .they spend most of their time in the shade to get away from the UV rays. Sh1t the UV rays cannot possible get through the shade!!!! .. or cloth.
As for the 45th parallel bit. . . taking that premise. . .there is no reason for humans to be light skin until they went pass the 45th parallel. In other words dark skinned people through out Northern Africa, Southern Europe and Southern Asia. Sh1t that sounds like a familiar theme. Where have I heard that before?
What do you think Mike?? Hell are they saying there was no fishing in Southern (coastal)Europe??
As I said the white skin developed waaaaay up north.. . .during/at the LGM
Ultraviolet radiation (UV) catalyzes the synthesis of vitamin D, which is required for absorption of calcium and development of the skeleton. Vitamin D deficiency can lead to rickets, a crippling bone disease. But overexposure to UV radiation will break down vitamin B folate (folic acid), which is necessary for fetal neural development and fertility. Anthropologist Nina Jablonski theorizes that dark skin evolved near the equator. There, UV radiation penetration is high enough to stimulate vitamin D production while the dark skin protects against the breakdown of folate. Light skin evolved when early humans migrated to the high latitudes where UV radiation is much lower. The amount of melanin gradually decreased to facilitate vitamin D synthesis under low UV conditions. Today, as a result of recent migrations, many individuals do not live in the climate for which their skin is adapted. Dark-skinned people in high latitudes can get their vitamin D from sources like fish, while light-skinned people in the tropics can protect against folate breakdown by covering up with clothing
RACE--is a made up idea that does not exist genetically. Skin pigmentation arose depending on the UV radiation received in human populations depending on latitude so as to preserve folic acid levels in the blood and to maintain high enough levels of vitamin D production. Humans could not settle in areas north of 45 degrees north (or south of 45 degrees south) until the advent of fishing (to provide a source of Vitamin D). There are greater genetic differences between different populations of people than there are between people of different skin colors in a population.
Source: Jablonski, Nina G., Chaplin, George, The Evolution of Human Skin Coloration . Journal of Human Evolution Vol. 39 No. 1, pages 57-106 July 1, 2000 [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
QUOTE]Originally posted by xyyman: Conclusion:
“These conclusions agree with earlier findings in our laboratory, that intrusion(INVASION) of populations differentiated(EVOLVED) elsewhere has contributed (ADMIXED)an important element to the association between genetics and language in Europe
[/QUOTE]
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
For several years the prevailing theory was that during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) the predecessors of the I1 group sought refuge in the Balkans.[4] For a time, the Ukraine was considered as an alternative. Yet, The Genographic Project claims that the founder of the I1 branch lived on the Iberian Peninsula during the LGM. Some have given southern France and the Italian peninsula as possible sites as well.[5] Although the locations vary, proponents of the refuge theories do seem to agree on one issue: that the I1 subclade is from 15,000 to 20,000 years old.[6]
However, professor Ken Nordtvedt of Montana State University believes that I1 is a more recent group, probably emerging after the LGM.[7] Other researchers including Peter A. Underhill of the Human Population Genetics Laboratory at Stanford University have since confirmed this hypothesis in independent research.[8][9]
The study of I1, which some had argued was largely ignored by the genetic testing industry in favor of "mega-haplogroups" like R, is in flux. Revisions and updates to previous thinking, primarily published in academic journals, is constant, yet slow, showing an evolution in thought and scientific evidence.[10]
The most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of I1 lived from 4,000 to 6,000 years ago somewhere in the far northern part of Europe, perhaps Denmark, according to Nordtvedt. His descendants are primarily found among the Germanic populations of northern Europe and the bordering Uralic and Celtic populations, although even in traditionally German demographics I1 is overshadowed by the more prevalent Haplogroup R. Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
xyyman - You really need to pay attention. This skeleton of a Black man of the Varna culture has been posted MANY times.
The Varna culture belongs to the late Eneolithic of northern Bulgaria. It is conventionally dated between 4,400-4,100 B.C, and is contemporary with Karanovo VI in the South.
Like most, if not ALL, of the original Eastern Europeans...
posted
xyyman - I will try to make this as simple as possible.
Imagine a map of Europe and Asia in your head.
It is about 1,500 B.C.
White people are leaving Central Asia and coming to Europe.
In order for them to get to Europe proper, they must first pass through Eastern Europe - Which is populated by Blacks of haplogroup "I".
Since ALL invaders like to fuch the women of the countries that they invade.
These White people pick-up the Black "I" gene as they pass through Eastern Europe.
Once IN Europe proper, they encounter OTHER Blacks with the "I" gene in Central Europe (the Celts), as well as Southern and Western Europe (the Gauls). So that by the time these White people head to North Western Europe, they have a good dose of Black blood.
Not to mention that there was probably "I" gene Blacks already in these Northern places when they got there.
[Mike writes] Not to mention that there was probably "I" gene Blacks already in these Northern places when they got there.
[Marc writes] The first web page is of the population in those Northern areas and the mask in the upper left of the second web page also has an individual who was part of those of Northern populations:
posted
xyyman - Just so there is no room for misunderstanding - I don't want to have to repeat this.
If a Black man of haplogroup "I" fuchs a White woman (I never said that it was ONLY White men fuching Black women). And she has a Male child, the child will be haplogroup "I" but with a LIGHTER complexion than his father.
If that "mixed-race" Boy makes a male baby with a White Woman, then his son will be haplogroup "I" but LIGHTER complexioned than him, and pretty much the same color as the Mother.
If that LESS "mixed-race" Boy makes a male baby with a White Woman, then his son will be haplogroup "I" but the same color as the Mother.
That ONLY took THREE generations, imagine what you could do in 3,000 years.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
[/QUOTE]
Printer-friendly view of this topic