...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Deshret » Are Mestizos Jealousy of Afro-American History (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Are Mestizos Jealousy of Afro-American History
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Clyde, there is no proof that the black Native Americans were African migrants straight from Africa. Black people are indigenous to all parts of the planet because all humans originate with Africans and most human populations were in tropical environments after leaving Africa thereby retaining their dark skin. That does not make those populations "African". All the evidence points to the Americas being settled by various waves of Asians starting with "aboriginal" dark skinned Asians, similar to populations in India, Australia and the Pacific.
Posts: 7063 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Moderator
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb]
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The only Native Americans whoes ancestry goes back 12ky would be Black Native Americans. Mongoloid Native Americans have only been in the Americas 6000 years. This is because the Paleoamericans were Blacks or Africans.


The term "black" is meaningless and unmeasurable in current anthropology.

 -

 -

^^ For instance are both of these people black?

Are they both Native Americans?

Are they related in any other way other than having relatively dark skin?

Stop the nonsense, thanks

They both dark but only one is called Black.

The South american Indian is a mongoloid.


Keep in mind Doug and Mike consider the Peruvian above to be Black but Clyde says only Negroids are black
Posts: 31207 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Clyde, there is no proof that the black Native Americans were African migrants straight from Africa. Black people are indigenous to all parts of the planet because all humans originate with Africans and most human populations were in tropical environments after leaving Africa thereby retaining their dark skin. That does not make those populations "African". All the evidence points to the Americas being settled by various waves of Asians starting with "aboriginal" dark skinned Asians, similar to populations in India, Australia and the Pacific.

.

 -

.
You don't know what your're talking about the first Americans came from Africa before the Ice melted due to the Ice Age.

Dr.Nieda Guidon claims that Africans were in Brazil 100,000 years ago. The evidence that fire existed in Brazil 65kya is an indication that man was at the site 65,000 years ago, since researchers found charcoal, which is the result of fire making.
The New York Times, reported that humans were Brazil 100,000 years ago .

If you would see the New York Times video you would noted that Dr.Nieda Guidon supports her dating of human population in Brazil 100,000 years ago to ancient fire and tool making.
Look at the New York Times video: Human’s First Appearance in the Americas @:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/americas/discoveries-challenge-beliefs-on-humans-arrival-in-the-americas.html?hp&_r=4


If you view the video you will see that human occupation of Brazil 100,000 years ago is supported by man made fire, e.g., the charcoal, and tools.

Dr. Guidon who conducted excavation at the site notes at 2:09 the site is 100,000 years old. At 3:17 in the video scientists proved that the tools are the result of human craftsmanship . You reject this evidence because it proves that Blacks were here before the mongoloids.

It is interesting that it is becoming clear that people may have left Africa 100kya, instead of 60kya to settle the world.


The second evidence of Africans in America before the mongoloids are the Solutrean artifacts from the offshore Cinmar site, Meadowcroft Rock Shelter in Pennsylvania, Oyster Cove on the Chesapeake Bay,Cactus Hill in Virginia, and the Miles Point site that date between 13-25kya. The Solutrean culture originated in Africa it was taken to the Americas by the Khoisan.

.

 -

.

We know the people in Brazil 100kya and the carriers of the Solutrean culture came from Africa because Asians did not enter the Americas until after 6kya.

Posts: 11933 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Moderator
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
 -

^^ Clyde this guy could claim African ancestry if you were to to go back 60,000 years or less

That means he's more African than if there were ancient Africans who went to Brazil 100,000 years ago

Posts: 31207 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KING
Member
Member # 9422

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for KING     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
People THINK

What do Native Americans Called African AMericans look like???

What do Native Americans called Afro Brazilians look like???

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

All three Groups look African. They don't look Asian Black, They look African Black.

Clyde is right and yall keep trying to claim the mongoloids as the only Native Americans, when African americans are Black Native Americans.

Stop trying to win debates, and actually LISTEN to each other..

Good Job Clyde

Posts: 9190 | From: Peace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

What do Native Americans Called African AMericans look like???

What do Native Americans called Afro Brazilians look like???

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

All three Groups look African. They don't look Asian Black, They look African Black.

Clyde is right and yall keep trying to claim the mongoloids as the only Native Americans, when African americans are Black Native Americans.

Stop trying to win debates, and actually LISTEN to each other..

Good Job Clyde

You are right. I am thinking the DNA of these folks would be the same if what you are saying is true.

"Pure" indigenous Native Americans will have the same DNA as Africans in America.

But they don't.

Your argument is based purely on conjecture not hard facts. Curly hair is not unique to Africa. Millions of black folks in the Pacific have curly hair and are not Africans. And these same people are right next to other populations of black folks in the Pacific with straight hair. Both are equally native, indigenous and aboriginal. Hair is subject to random mutation and genetic drift as much as any other trait of the human body.

Posts: 7063 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Akachi
Member
Member # 21711

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Akachi     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

What do Native Americans Called African AMericans look like???

What do Native Americans called Afro Brazilians look like???

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

All three Groups look African. They don't look Asian Black, They look African Black.

Clyde is right and yall keep trying to claim the mongoloids as the only Native Americans, when African americans are Black Native Americans.

Stop trying to win debates, and actually LISTEN to each other..

Good Job Clyde

You are right. I am thinking the DNA of these folks would be the same if what you are saying is true.

"Pure" indigenous Native Americans will have the same DNA as Africans in America.

But they don't.

Your argument is based purely on conjecture not hard facts. Curly hair is not unique to Africa. Millions of black folks in the Pacific have curly hair and are not Africans. And these same people are right next to other populations of black folks in the Pacific with straight hair. Both are equally native, indigenous and aboriginal. Hair is subject to random mutation and genetic drift as much as any other trait of the human body.

Why Ignore that those Pacific Islanders are all variations of Africoid people who simply migrated and settled in those parts of the World thousands of years ago? Those melaninated Africoid Southern-Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders actually say that they migrated from Africa.

The fact that not only are those Asians phenotypically identical to Africans, but they also carry African blood types as indicated by the spread of maria - maria resistance (sickle cell, G6PD etc). This can only be passed down from common ancestry not "adaption". The map below CLEARLY shows that this phenomena is an African one by the distribution. First the distribution of the U.S. matches the distribution of the black population concentrated in the low land south. The situation in Europe is also telling because it is in the areas where we know was very recently (500 years ago) dominated by African Muslims (Moors).
 -

Once again we see Africoid haplotypes for sickle cell distributed from Africa all the way into southeast Asia.

 -

This fact should lay to rest any attempts to say that we are not closely related to the melaninated peoples of Asia. They literally share our unique blood line.

Posts: 313 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Moderator
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

What do Native Americans Called African AMericans look like???

What do Native Americans called Afro Brazilians look like???

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

All three Groups look African. They don't look Asian Black, They look African Black.

Clyde is right and yall keep trying to claim the mongoloids as the only Native Americans, when African americans are Black Native Americans.

Stop trying to win debates, and actually LISTEN to each other..

Good Job Clyde

This is what native Brazilians look like

 -
Yanomami Indians (except second from left)

^ Some of these groups deep in the Amazon rainforest have been isolated there for thousands of years


 -

Theoretically all people from Donald Trump to the Korean leader Kim Jong Un have African ancestors and those ancestors looked African

If you find people in Brazil today who look African and Brazilians also looked African 60,000 years ago that doesn't mean the African looking person you see today is Brazilian.
That is faulty logic.

The percentage of Native Americans in the United States and Brazil is under 2%.

Over nearly three centuries from the late 1500s to the 1860s, Brazil was consistently the largest destination for African slaves in the Americas. In that period, approximately 4 million enslaved Africans were imported to Brazil.
Like African Americans, Afro Brazilians are much larger in number than Native Indigenous people.
Many of the Africans who were transported to Brazil mixed with Europeans and Native Brazilians


The high level of European ancestry in African Brazilians through paternal line exists because, for much of Brazil's History, there were more Caucasian males than Caucasian females. So inter-racial relationships between Caucasian males and native African or Native American females were widespread

 -


 -

^^^ these people, like Europeans may look like prehistoric Brazilians but like Europeans these Afro Brazilians are rent to Brazil, going back several hundred years

 -
Of the above famous Afro Brazilians, they are all largely recent African and second to that have some European admixture. However the soccer player Obina has more Native ancestry relative to his European ancestry, 24% Amerindian and 13% European

Posts: 31207 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KING
Member
Member # 9422

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for KING     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

What do Native Americans Called African AMericans look like???

What do Native Americans called Afro Brazilians look like???

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

All three Groups look African. They don't look Asian Black, They look African Black.

Clyde is right and yall keep trying to claim the mongoloids as the only Native Americans, when African americans are Black Native Americans.

Stop trying to win debates, and actually LISTEN to each other..

Good Job Clyde

You are right. I am thinking the DNA of these folks would be the same if what you are saying is true.

"Pure" indigenous Native Americans will have the same DNA as Africans in America.

But they don't.

Your argument is based purely on conjecture not hard facts. Curly hair is not unique to Africa. Millions of black folks in the Pacific have curly hair and are not Africans. And these same people are right next to other populations of black folks in the Pacific with straight hair. Both are equally native, indigenous and aboriginal. Hair is subject to random mutation and genetic drift as much as any other trait of the human body.

Doug M DNA is Fake, Read through the lies of the establishment. DNA HAS BIN FALSIFIED IN MANY PEOPLE.

DNA GETS THE RESULTS THE SCIENTIST DESIRE NOT THE TRUTH

LOOK AT THE GARIFUNA PEOPLE FOR EXAMPLE.

Also Read this

Doug M

Don't forget Doug that DNA is not reliable past the mother and father...

Also there was DNA Tests of people who were clearly African...who had DNA stating they were From places as far as East Asia

Man as 'black’for 50 years finds out he's probably not
 -

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-12/29/content_294229.htm


This is the Next particular strange phenomenon of DNA when an African Male took the dna Lie oops plunge:

 -

I Thought I Was Black - Until I Had An Ancestry DNA Test
http://www.arogundade.com/my-story-ancestry-dna-testing-for-ethnicity.html

DNA seems to get what the doctor or scientist desires. I would not hold to DNA testing to prove my point.

Scientist are liars

Posts: 9190 | From: Peace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KING
Member
Member # 9422

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for KING     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

What do Native Americans Called African AMericans look like???

What do Native Americans called Afro Brazilians look like???

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

All three Groups look African. They don't look Asian Black, They look African Black.

Clyde is right and yall keep trying to claim the mongoloids as the only Native Americans, when African americans are Black Native Americans.

Stop trying to win debates, and actually LISTEN to each other..

Good Job Clyde

This is what native Brazilians look like

 -
Yanomami Indians (except second from left)

^ Some of these groups deep in the Amazon rainforest have been isolated there for thousands of years


 -

Theoretically all people from Donald Trump to the Korean leader Kim Jong Un have African ancestors and those ancestors looked African

If you find people in Brazil today who look African and Brazilians also looked African 60,000 years ago that doesn't mean the African looking person you see today is Brazilian.
That is faulty logic.

The percentage of Native Americans in the United States and Brazil is under 2%.

Over nearly three centuries from the late 1500s to the 1860s, Brazil was consistently the largest destination for African slaves in the Americas. In that period, approximately 4 million enslaved Africans were imported to Brazil.
Like African Americans, Afro Brazilians are much larger in number than Native Indigenous people.
Many of the Africans who were transported to Brazil mixed with Europeans and Native Brazilians


The high level of European ancestry in African Brazilians through paternal line exists because, for much of Brazil's History, there were more Caucasian males than Caucasian females. So inter-racial relationships between Caucasian males and native African or Native American females were widespread

 -


 -

^^^ these people, like Europeans may look like prehistoric Brazilians but like Europeans these Afro Brazilians are rent to Brazil, going back several hundred years

 -
Of the above famous Afro Brazilians, they are all largely recent African and second to that have some European admixture. However the soccer player Obina has more Native ancestry relative to his European ancestry, 24% Amerindian and 13% European

lioness what proof do you have of the slave trade????

what proof is there that millions of people were brought on wood boats from Africa to the new world???

what proof is there that Africans were docile enough to be brought to another area of the earth by the slow moving wood boats that float on seas.

what proof is there that these people were brought there in the millions and ships made a year round trip successful every time.

do you know what a million people are??? how much people could the boat hold???

lioness explain how 400 hundred thousand people morph into 42million people

explain how 12million people morph into 200million plus people in less then 400 years even though they were worked to death in slavery???

Explain how the people were fed in the boat that they came on lioness.

Posts: 9190 | From: Peace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Moderator
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KING send a message to Black Women of Brazil saying that slavery in Brazil was a hoax, see if they agree. Then get back to me

You can also look in this database of shipping records:


http://slavevoyages.org/

Posts: 31207 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KING
Member
Member # 9422

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for KING     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
KING send a message to Black Women of Brazil saying that slavery in Brazil was a hoax, see if they agree. Then get back to me

You can also look in this database of shipping records:


http://slavevoyages.org/

Lioness POST THE FACTS ABOUT SLAVERY IN THE AMERICAS.

You said theres facts post in brazil where 4million Slaves turned into 100 million People in Brazil.

TRANS ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE WAS FAKE.

Slavery was a minimal process, was actually at the most regional slavery.

How does words typed from diseased pig skins add up to truth???

What people believe in strongly does not mean its true.

look how the diseased pigs called eurapeans covered up Abraham Lincolns color, yet you believe them about there fake slave trade.

ITS CALLED FANTASY

Posts: 9190 | From: Peace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Akachi:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

What do Native Americans Called African AMericans look like???

What do Native Americans called Afro Brazilians look like???

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

All three Groups look African. They don't look Asian Black, They look African Black.

Clyde is right and yall keep trying to claim the mongoloids as the only Native Americans, when African americans are Black Native Americans.

Stop trying to win debates, and actually LISTEN to each other..

Good Job Clyde

You are right. I am thinking the DNA of these folks would be the same if what you are saying is true.

"Pure" indigenous Native Americans will have the same DNA as Africans in America.

But they don't.

Your argument is based purely on conjecture not hard facts. Curly hair is not unique to Africa. Millions of black folks in the Pacific have curly hair and are not Africans. And these same people are right next to other populations of black folks in the Pacific with straight hair. Both are equally native, indigenous and aboriginal. Hair is subject to random mutation and genetic drift as much as any other trait of the human body.

Why Ignore that those Pacific Islanders are all variations of Africoid people who simply migrated and settled in those parts of the World thousands of years ago? Those melaninated Africoid Southern-Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders actually say that they migrated from Africa.

The fact that not only are those Asians phenotypically identical to Africans, but they also carry African blood types as indicated by the spread of maria - maria resistance (sickle cell, G6PD etc). This can only be passed down from common ancestry not "adaption". The map below CLEARLY shows that this phenomena is an African one by the distribution. First the distribution of the U.S. matches the distribution of the black population concentrated in the low land south. The situation in Europe is also telling because it is in the areas where we know was very recently (500 years ago) dominated by African Muslims (Moors).
 -

Once again we see Africoid haplotypes for sickle cell distributed from Africa all the way into southeast Asia.

 -

This fact should lay to rest any attempts to say that we are not closely related to the melaninated peoples of Asia. They literally share our unique blood line.

Akachi you are right Oceanic and Africans share a common bloodline.

Today people have stopped calling the Oceanic people Negroes. But up until the 1990's the generic term Negro was used for Blacks worldwide. For the past 200 years it was used to identify Blacks in Africa and Asia. This was confirmed by crianiometric meseaurement and blood grouping. I shouldn't have to tell you this, but crianiometrics can distinguish Negroes from Mongoloid or Caucasian populations.

 -

DNA is showing the same correspondence.


 -

Tonga step pyramid


First, the Fijians claim they came from Africa. We know a megalithic culture expanded from Africa into the Indian/Pacific Ocean areas after 2000 BC.


 -

Pyramid of Mauritius


Secondly, African place names are found in the Pacific and correspondences between lexical items.


  • Common Terms:

    English Manding Melanesian Polynesian

    arrow bye,bya fana,pane fana,pana

    Father baba babi papa

    Man tye ta taga-ta

    head ku tequ-qa tuku-noa

    pot daga taga taga

    vase bara pora,bora bora-bora

    fish yege ige, ika ika

    ox, cattle konga,gunga kede kuda



The ancient Austronesians cultivated rice, millet, yams and sugarcane. (Bellwood 1990, p.92)

It would appear that the Polynesians learned agriculture from the Manding as illustrated below:

  • Polynesian English Manding

    *talun fallow, land daa

    *tanem to plant, sow daa

    *suluq torch, jet of flame suu

    *kuDen cooking pot,bowl ku

This evidence provides linguistic and anthropological support for the Fiji tradition. It is wrong that you guys deny a people history just because your European masters to do not present evidence in support of a native tradition.

If you keep waiting for Europeans to verify our history you will have a long wait.


Recently Williams John Page (1988) discussed the Lakato Hypothesis. The Lakato Hypothesis stated simply implies that the Melanesian people of Fiji were carried to the Pacific Islands by Indonesian maritime merchants after they had colonized parts of East and central Africa. In these Indonesian centers, Page (1988) believes that the Africans "gravitated into the Indonesian inspired trade". Page (1988) wrote that :
code:
"It is further suggested that the Lakato colonies in
Africa were the principal contributors to the earliest
settlements of Malagasy and responsible for the traces
of Indonesian influence in Africa which have endured into
modern times, as identified by previous investigators".

To support this hypothesis Page (1988) presents place names that are made up of African ethnic names (AEN) as roots for Fijian placenames. These toponyms include a multitude of hills, streams and villages composed of a simple AEN root plus a Fijian placenames e.g.,koro, wai-ni-, vatu and na-. Page (1988, p.34) found 270 AEN's forming part of Fijian place names (FPN). The interesting fact about the AEN and FPN cognates is that they are found in West Africa and not East Africa. (Page 1988, p.47)

This fact negates Page's (1988) hypothesis because there are no rivers in Africa that link East Africa and West Africa. This suggest that Africans who later settled West Africa must have been in the Pacific long before the Austronesians arrived on Madagascar. This view is supported by the fact that the classical mongoloid people did not arrive in the Pacific area until after 500 B.C.

Page (1988,p.66) believes that the AEN-FPN cognates are the result of the establishment of Indonesian colonies first along the Zambia river and from there into Central and Western Africa between the fourth and eleventh centuries A.D. During this period Bantu speakers are believed to have been incorporated into the Indonesian Lakota culture and between the eleventh to sixteenth A.D. settled in Melanesia by Lakota fleets. (Page 1988, p.66) Although Page's (1988,p.67) theory is interesting the fact that the AENs that are FPN's are prefixed to a multitude of hills, streams and villages" indicate that these place names are very old because the names for hills and streams are rarely changed.

Page (1988, p.67) noted four common prefixes used in the FPN's: Koro 'village,hill', wai-ni- 'water of'; vatu- 'stone'; and na- 'the'. These terms are closely related to Manding terms as illustrated below:
code:
FPN English Manding
koro hill kuru
koro village so-koro
wai-ni water of ba-ni 'course
of water'
vatu stone bete
na the ni

As illustrated above the AENs and Manding terms are analogous for 'hill', 'the' and 'of'. It would appear that the FPN /w/ corresponds to Manding /b/. Due to the thousands of miles separating the Manding and AENs, this cognate can be explained as loan words. Given the full agreement of these terms suggest a genetic relationship between AENs and Manding and descent from Paleo-African.

In addition to AENs serving as FPNs we find many toponyms in Oceania that corresponds to West African place names. Below we see 36 place names from Oceania and WestAfrica that share full correspondence. Manding ,Polynesian and Melanesian share many terms for kinship, dwellings, topographical features, dwellings and utensils.


  • WEST AFRICA OCEANIA
    Alamand Alamanda
    Alika Alika
    Alika Arika
    Babonga Babonga
    Bagola Bagola
    Batori Batori
    Bakaka Bakaka
    Bambula Bambula
    Buduri Buduri
    Burbura Burbura
    Gambia Gambia
    Kalobi Kalobi
    Kalonda Kalonda
    Kalonga Kalonga
    Kamalo Kamalo
    Kambia Kambia
    Kamori Kamori
    Kantara Kantara
    Karako Karako
    Kayata Kayata
    Kukula Kukula
    Magari Magari
    Magura Maguri
    Makara Makara
    Marosi Maros
    Oronga Oronga
    Palanka Palanka
    Parapara Parapara
    Sio Sio
    Sumbura Sumbura
    Tamana Tamana
    Taraba Taraba
    Taramal Taramal
    Teleki Teleki
    Totoki Totoki
    Varong Varong


See full article: http://olmec98.net/pac1.htm


In fact, they also share common placenames. Shared place names in Melanesia suggest that the Melanesians recently came to the Pacific from Africa, as claimed by the Fijians.

 -


The Melanesians probably belonged to the Niger-Congo and Dravidian speaking communities that formerly lived in the Sahara-Sahel region until 5-6kya. The Melanesians formerly lived in Africa and/or South China/Southeast Asia before they sailed to the Pacific Islans, probably as part of the Lapita migrations.

In figure 3 we see cognate Mande and Melanesian terms for vase, pot, arrow, cattle/ox, and fish. They also shared agricultural terms as well

  • Polynesian English Manding
    *talun fallow, land daa
    *tanem to plant daa
    *suluq torch, flame suu
    *kuDen cooking pot,bowl ku



 -

As you can see the Melanesians and Africans are not only negroid they also share genes, placenames and culture terms.

Posts: 11933 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KING:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

What do Native Americans Called African AMericans look like???

What do Native Americans called Afro Brazilians look like???

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

All three Groups look African. They don't look Asian Black, They look African Black.

Clyde is right and yall keep trying to claim the mongoloids as the only Native Americans, when African americans are Black Native Americans.

Stop trying to win debates, and actually LISTEN to each other..

Good Job Clyde

You are right. I am thinking the DNA of these folks would be the same if what you are saying is true.

"Pure" indigenous Native Americans will have the same DNA as Africans in America.

But they don't.

Your argument is based purely on conjecture not hard facts. Curly hair is not unique to Africa. Millions of black folks in the Pacific have curly hair and are not Africans. And these same people are right next to other populations of black folks in the Pacific with straight hair. Both are equally native, indigenous and aboriginal. Hair is subject to random mutation and genetic drift as much as any other trait of the human body.

Doug M DNA is Fake, Read through the lies of the establishment. DNA HAS BIN FALSIFIED IN MANY PEOPLE.

DNA GETS THE RESULTS THE SCIENTIST DESIRE NOT THE TRUTH

LOOK AT THE GARIFUNA PEOPLE FOR EXAMPLE.

Also Read this

Doug M

Don't forget Doug that DNA is not reliable past the mother and father...

Also there was DNA Tests of people who were clearly African...who had DNA stating they were From places as far as East Asia

Man as 'black’for 50 years finds out he's probably not
 -

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-12/29/content_294229.htm


This is the Next particular strange phenomenon of DNA when an African Male took the dna Lie oops plunge:

 -

I Thought I Was Black - Until I Had An Ancestry DNA Test
http://www.arogundade.com/my-story-ancestry-dna-testing-for-ethnicity.html

DNA seems to get what the doctor or scientist desires. I would not hold to DNA testing to prove my point.

Scientist are liars

DNA is not fake. Eurocentrics just change the name for haplogroups to confuse people for example, the M1 haplogroup in Africa is called D4 in Asia.

Check out the video below it explains how gnetics can be used to support white Supremacy.


 -

Posts: 11933 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KING
Member
Member # 9422

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for KING     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:
Originally posted by KING:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

What do Native Americans Called African AMericans look like???

What do Native Americans called Afro Brazilians look like???

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

All three Groups look African. They don't look Asian Black, They look African Black.

Clyde is right and yall keep trying to claim the mongoloids as the only Native Americans, when African americans are Black Native Americans.

Stop trying to win debates, and actually LISTEN to each other..

Good Job Clyde

You are right. I am thinking the DNA of these folks would be the same if what you are saying is true.

"Pure" indigenous Native Americans will have the same DNA as Africans in America.

But they don't.

Your argument is based purely on conjecture not hard facts. Curly hair is not unique to Africa. Millions of black folks in the Pacific have curly hair and are not Africans. And these same people are right next to other populations of black folks in the Pacific with straight hair. Both are equally native, indigenous and aboriginal. Hair is subject to random mutation and genetic drift as much as any other trait of the human body.

Doug M DNA is Fake, Read through the lies of the establishment. DNA HAS BIN FALSIFIED IN MANY PEOPLE.

DNA GETS THE RESULTS THE SCIENTIST DESIRE NOT THE TRUTH

LOOK AT THE GARIFUNA PEOPLE FOR EXAMPLE.

Also Read this

Doug M

Don't forget Doug that DNA is not reliable past the mother and father...

Also there was DNA Tests of people who were clearly African...who had DNA stating they were From places as far as East Asia

Man as 'black’for 50 years finds out he's probably not
 -

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-12/29/content_294229.htm


This is the Next particular strange phenomenon of DNA when an African Male took the dna Lie oops plunge:

 -

I Thought I Was Black - Until I Had An Ancestry DNA Test
http://www.arogundade.com/my-story-ancestry-dna-testing-for-ethnicity.html

DNA seems to get what the doctor or scientist desires. I would not hold to DNA testing to prove my point.

Scientist are liars

DNA is not fake. Eurocentrics just change the name for haplogroups to confuse people for example, the M1 haplogroup in Africa is called D4 in Asia.

Check out the video below it explains how gnetics can be used to support white Supremacy.


 -

DNA is fake, that's the reason why they get fake results from genes. scientist are not stupid, they know that movements of people from history is copied into fake genetics and they label the specimen as they desire.

sometimes they follow oral history some times for dna they use appearance, thats why they claim native Indians have the same genes as Asians cause they look alike.

then theres people like the Garifuna who exposes there Native American lies or fake dna cause they look like Africans, yet they are Native Americans.

you don't know dna has shown that some Africans are east asian.

thanks for the video

Posts: 9190 | From: Peace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Moderator
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KING is now an official graduate of Mike University
Posts: 31207 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Moderator
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
White supremacy perpetrated the hoax of slavery. In fact most Black in America are not African nor are Afro Brazilians "Afro"
They are by and large Black Native Americans, not Africans, so forget that Africa motherland stuff, our people have not been there since 100,000 years

Posts: 31207 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KING
Member
Member # 9422

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for KING     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
White supremacy perpetrated the hoax of slavery. In fact most Black in America are not African nor are Afro Brazilians "Afro"
They are by and large Black Native Americans, not Africans, so forget that Africa motherland stuff, our people have not been there since 100,000 years

clap clap clap

good job Lioness

thats the fact.

don't believe then I plead that all pro slavers post

POST THE FACTS ABOUT SLAVERY IN THE AMERICAS.

post in brazil where 4million Slaves turned into 100 million People in Brazil.
TRANS ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE WAS FAKE.

Slavery was a minimal process, was actually at the most regional slavery.


How does words typed from diseased pig skins add up to truth???

What people believe in strongly does not mean its true.


how does 400hundred thousand people turn into 42million people during the slave era???




ITS CALLED FANTASY

Posts: 9190 | From: Peace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Moderator
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KING:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
White supremacy perpetrated the hoax of slavery. In fact most Black in America are not African nor are Afro Brazilians "Afro"
They are by and large Black Native Americans, not Africans, so forget that Africa motherland stuff, our people have not been there since 100,000 years

clap clap clap

good job Lioness

thats the fact.

don't believe then I plead that all pro slavers post

POST THE FACTS ABOUT SLAVERY IN THE AMERICAS.

post in brazil where 4million Slaves turned into 100 million People in Brazil.
TRANS ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE WAS FAKE.

Slavery was a minimal process, was actually at the most regional slavery.


How does words typed from diseased pig skins add up to truth???

What people believe in strongly does not mean its true.


how does 400hundred thousand people turn into 42million people during the slave era???




ITS CALLED FANTASY

KING, if you can show me some Brazilians saying that recent Africans being in Brazil (past several hundred years) is minimal then I might cosign. But one guy in Canada saying it is not enough.
Or better yet why don't you go to one of the Indian reservations Canada and tell them they are fake and you are a real Native Canadian. Start where you live and see if it works in the real world off the internet

quote:
Originally posted by KING:
how does 400 hundred thousand people turn into 42million people during the slave era???


Jamestown, the first European settlement in America had about 100 people.
How did that turn into 200 Million people ?


Did you know that in the 19th century the African American birth rate was 9+ children ? That was a higher birth rate than whites

The plantation owners were promoting domestic "breeding" of slaves because it was much cheaper than importing slaves and there was no need to force people into a new culture.
So do the math with that birth rate, that is millions. look up "geometric progression"

Posts: 31207 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KING
Member
Member # 9422

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for KING     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by KING:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
White supremacy perpetrated the hoax of slavery. In fact most Black in America are not African nor are Afro Brazilians "Afro"
They are by and large Black Native Americans, not Africans, so forget that Africa motherland stuff, our people have not been there since 100,000 years

clap clap clap

good job Lioness

thats the fact.

don't believe then I plead that all pro slavers post

POST THE FACTS ABOUT SLAVERY IN THE AMERICAS.

post in brazil where 4million Slaves turned into 100 million People in Brazil.
TRANS ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE WAS FAKE.

Slavery was a minimal process, was actually at the most regional slavery.


How does words typed from diseased pig skins add up to truth???

What people believe in strongly does not mean its true.


how does 400hundred thousand people turn into 42million people during the slave era???




ITS CALLED FANTASY

KING, if you can show me some Brazilians saying that recent Africans being in Brazil (past several hundred years) is minimal then I might cosign. But one guy in Canada saying it is not enough.
Or better yet why don't you go to one of the Indian reservations Canada and tell them they are fake and you are a real Native Canadian. Start where you live and see if it works in the real world off the internet

quote:
Originally posted by KING:
how does 400 hundred thousand people turn into 42million people during the slave era???


Jamestown, the first European settlement in America had about 100 people.
How did that turn into 200 Million people ?


Did you know that in the 19th century the African American birth rate was 9+ children ? That was a higher birth rate than whites

The plantation owners were promoting domestic "breeding" of slaves because it was much cheaper than importing slaves and there was no need to force people into a new culture.
So do the math with that birth rate, that is millions. look up "geometric progression"

lioness, why are you talking stupidness??

if the slave trade thats made up by eurapeans to soothe there egos is true, then you can prove how wood boats that float on the seas and move with the wind and have no motor shipped 12million peoples from one area to another area how those ships made it to the Americas from crossing from the other side of the earth

also lioness you don't need a big movement of peoples to see culture spread. how do Nigerians speak English without a huge population shift??


when did i say the Mongoloids were fake natives? theres 2 native populations. one looks African the other looks mongoloid

did you just compare a settlement where people freely travel to backbreaking slavery???

Lioness you actually a disgusting individual with a hint of serpent in you, i have lost all respect for you and your evil attack on the Black family. you actually think blacks avg 9 children per family. sick women who gave into the jungle fever nonsense of the white pigs

Posts: 9190 | From: Peace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Akachi:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

What do Native Americans Called African AMericans look like???

What do Native Americans called Afro Brazilians look like???

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

All three Groups look African. They don't look Asian Black, They look African Black.

Clyde is right and yall keep trying to claim the mongoloids as the only Native Americans, when African americans are Black Native Americans.

Stop trying to win debates, and actually LISTEN to each other..

Good Job Clyde

You are right. I am thinking the DNA of these folks would be the same if what you are saying is true.

"Pure" indigenous Native Americans will have the same DNA as Africans in America.

But they don't.

Your argument is based purely on conjecture not hard facts. Curly hair is not unique to Africa. Millions of black folks in the Pacific have curly hair and are not Africans. And these same people are right next to other populations of black folks in the Pacific with straight hair. Both are equally native, indigenous and aboriginal. Hair is subject to random mutation and genetic drift as much as any other trait of the human body.

Why Ignore that those Pacific Islanders are all variations of Africoid people who simply migrated and settled in those parts of the World thousands of years ago? Those melaninated Africoid Southern-Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders actually say that they migrated from Africa.

The fact that not only are those Asians phenotypically identical to Africans, but they also carry African blood types as indicated by the spread of maria - maria resistance (sickle cell, G6PD etc). This can only be passed down from common ancestry not "adaption". The map below CLEARLY shows that this phenomena is an African one by the distribution. First the distribution of the U.S. matches the distribution of the black population concentrated in the low land south. The situation in Europe is also telling because it is in the areas where we know was very recently (500 years ago) dominated by African Muslims (Moors).
 -

Once again we see Africoid haplotypes for sickle cell distributed from Africa all the way into southeast Asia.

 -

This fact should lay to rest any attempts to say that we are not closely related to the melaninated peoples of Asia. They literally share our unique blood line.

Sickle cell is not DNA. Surely you aren't claiming that the DNA of people in New Guinea is the same as the DNA of people in Africa. These people are descendants of the first people to leave Africa 60,000 years ago. So how are they still African? And which of these people claim they "recently" came from Africa?

The problem you have is that the environment determines phenotype. And Africa itself is not the basis of "blackness", but tropical environments are. Anywhere there are tropical environments you will find people who are tropically adapted. And mosquitos are not unique to Africa either. You also find large numbers of mosquitos anywhere that is hot and moist, ie. a tropical environment. Therefore, you are making a false equivalency. Having sickle cell traits does not equate to recent African ancestry. Because it could simply be an adaptation to local environmental conditions as opposed to some 'recent' migrations from Africa. Note that all these populations inhabit the same latitude as central Africa around the equator, which is the primary location of tropical environments on the planet. Therefore, it is an environment issue, not Africa that is causing the similarities in phenotype and blood type.

It has been shown numerous times that the DNA of Pacific Islanders, Andaman Islanders, Australian Aborigines and Papua New Guineans is far from Africans, even though they look similar by phenotype.....

Posts: 7063 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Akachi:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

What do Native Americans Called African AMericans look like???

What do Native Americans called Afro Brazilians look like???

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

All three Groups look African. They don't look Asian Black, They look African Black.

Clyde is right and yall keep trying to claim the mongoloids as the only Native Americans, when African americans are Black Native Americans.

Stop trying to win debates, and actually LISTEN to each other..

Good Job Clyde

You are right. I am thinking the DNA of these folks would be the same if what you are saying is true.

"Pure" indigenous Native Americans will have the same DNA as Africans in America.

But they don't.

Your argument is based purely on conjecture not hard facts. Curly hair is not unique to Africa. Millions of black folks in the Pacific have curly hair and are not Africans. And these same people are right next to other populations of black folks in the Pacific with straight hair. Both are equally native, indigenous and aboriginal. Hair is subject to random mutation and genetic drift as much as any other trait of the human body.

Why Ignore that those Pacific Islanders are all variations of Africoid people who simply migrated and settled in those parts of the World thousands of years ago? Those melaninated Africoid Southern-Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders actually say that they migrated from Africa.

The fact that not only are those Asians phenotypically identical to Africans, but they also carry African blood types as indicated by the spread of maria - maria resistance (sickle cell, G6PD etc). This can only be passed down from common ancestry not "adaption". The map below CLEARLY shows that this phenomena is an African one by the distribution. First the distribution of the U.S. matches the distribution of the black population concentrated in the low land south. The situation in Europe is also telling because it is in the areas where we know was very recently (500 years ago) dominated by African Muslims (Moors).
 -

Once again we see Africoid haplotypes for sickle cell distributed from Africa all the way into southeast Asia.

 -

This fact should lay to rest any attempts to say that we are not closely related to the melaninated peoples of Asia. They literally share our unique blood line.

Sickle cell is not DNA. Surely you aren't claiming that the DNA of people in New Guinea is the same as the DNA of people in Africa. These people are descendants of the first people to leave Africa 60,000 years ago. So how are they still African? And which of these people claim they "recently" came from Africa?

The problem you have is that the environment determines phenotype. And Africa itself is not the basis of "blackness", but tropical environments are. Anywhere there are tropical environments you will find people who are tropically adapted. And mosquitos are not unique to Africa either. You also find large numbers of mosquitos anywhere that is hot and moist, ie. a tropical environment. Therefore, you are making a false equivalency. Having sickle cell traits does not equate to recent African ancestry. Because it could simply be an adaptation to local environmental conditions as opposed to some 'recent' migrations from Africa. Note that all these populations inhabit the same latitude as central Africa around the equator, which is the primary location of tropical environments on the planet. Therefore, it is an environment issue, not Africa that is causing the similarities in phenotype and blood type.

It has been shown numerous times that the DNA of Pacific Islanders, Andaman Islanders, Australian Aborigines and Papua New Guineans is far from Africans, even though they look similar by phenotype.....

This is false. you have failed to read the literature. you need to do your own research.


 -

.
The research shows Blacks in Africa and the Pacific share DNA.
.

Posts: 11933 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Akachi:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

What do Native Americans Called African AMericans look like???

What do Native Americans called Afro Brazilians look like???

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

All three Groups look African. They don't look Asian Black, They look African Black.

Clyde is right and yall keep trying to claim the mongoloids as the only Native Americans, when African americans are Black Native Americans.

Stop trying to win debates, and actually LISTEN to each other..

Good Job Clyde

You are right. I am thinking the DNA of these folks would be the same if what you are saying is true.

"Pure" indigenous Native Americans will have the same DNA as Africans in America.

But they don't.

Your argument is based purely on conjecture not hard facts. Curly hair is not unique to Africa. Millions of black folks in the Pacific have curly hair and are not Africans. And these same people are right next to other populations of black folks in the Pacific with straight hair. Both are equally native, indigenous and aboriginal. Hair is subject to random mutation and genetic drift as much as any other trait of the human body.

Why Ignore that those Pacific Islanders are all variations of Africoid people who simply migrated and settled in those parts of the World thousands of years ago? Those melaninated Africoid Southern-Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders actually say that they migrated from Africa.

The fact that not only are those Asians phenotypically identical to Africans, but they also carry African blood types as indicated by the spread of maria - maria resistance (sickle cell, G6PD etc). This can only be passed down from common ancestry not "adaption". The map below CLEARLY shows that this phenomena is an African one by the distribution. First the distribution of the U.S. matches the distribution of the black population concentrated in the low land south. The situation in Europe is also telling because it is in the areas where we know was very recently (500 years ago) dominated by African Muslims (Moors).
 -

Once again we see Africoid haplotypes for sickle cell distributed from Africa all the way into southeast Asia.

 -

This fact should lay to rest any attempts to say that we are not closely related to the melaninated peoples of Asia. They literally share our unique blood line.

Sickle cell is not DNA. Surely you aren't claiming that the DNA of people in New Guinea is the same as the DNA of people in Africa. These people are descendants of the first people to leave Africa 60,000 years ago. So how are they still African? And which of these people claim they "recently" came from Africa?

The problem you have is that the environment determines phenotype. And Africa itself is not the basis of "blackness", but tropical environments are. Anywhere there are tropical environments you will find people who are tropically adapted. And mosquitos are not unique to Africa either. You also find large numbers of mosquitos anywhere that is hot and moist, ie. a tropical environment. Therefore, you are making a false equivalency. Having sickle cell traits does not equate to recent African ancestry. Because it could simply be an adaptation to local environmental conditions as opposed to some 'recent' migrations from Africa. Note that all these populations inhabit the same latitude as central Africa around the equator, which is the primary location of tropical environments on the planet. Therefore, it is an environment issue, not Africa that is causing the similarities in phenotype and blood type.

It has been shown numerous times that the DNA of Pacific Islanders, Andaman Islanders, Australian Aborigines and Papua New Guineans is far from Africans, even though they look similar by phenotype.....

This is false. you have failed to read the literature. you need to do your own research.


 -

.
The research shows Blacks in Africa and the Pacific share DNA.
.

Come on Clyde, these people are not recent migrants from Afrca......

quote:

The population history of Aboriginal Australians remains largely uncharacterized. Here we generate high-coverage
genomes for 83 Aboriginal Australians (speakers of Pama–Nyungan languages) and 25 Papuans from the New Guinea
Highlands. We find that Papuan and Aboriginal Australian ancestors diversified 25–40 thousand years ago (kya), suggesting
pre-Holocene population structure in the ancient continent of Sahul (Australia, New Guinea and Tasmania). However,
all of the studied Aboriginal Australians descend from a single founding population that differentiated ~10–32 kya.
We infer a population expansion in northeast Australia during the Holocene epoch (past 10,000 years) associated with
limited gene flow from this region to the rest of Australia, consistent with the spread of the Pama–Nyungan languages.
We estimate that Aboriginal Australians and Papuans diverged from Eurasians 51–72 kya, following a single out-of-Africa
dispersal, and subsequently admixed with archaic populations. Finally, we report evidence of selection in Aboriginal
Australians potentially associated with living in the desert

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308391208_A_genomic_history_of_Aboriginal_Australia
Posts: 7063 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Akachi
Member
Member # 21711

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Akachi     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:Sickle cell is not DNA. Surely you aren't claiming that the DNA of people in New Guinea is the same as the DNA of people in Africa.
That is a BLOOD LINEAGE... However you want to slice it that is directly tied to a core origin with Niger-Congo speakers now in West, South and Central Africa. This common blood lineage is proof that the relationship between Africans and Southeast Asians is not superficial. Once again this BLOOD LINEAGE is only passed from parent to offspring..., and not some sporadic "tropical" phenomena. Coupled with the fact that these people state that they actually came from Africa it's indisputable proof of a more recent expansion of those particular Africoid types.

I link those sickle cell-maria carrying people in Southeast Asia-South Pacific to a recent expansion from the Nile Valley rather than the more ancient ones. The facts that the ancient Kemetic presence has been proven to have existed in the South Pacific and Australia.

"Ancient Egyptians In Hawaii Most people tend to think of the ancient Egyptians as stay-at-homes who were too busy building pyramids to explore far lands. But many artifacts from the South Pacific and even Hawaii hint that they were otherwise. Some Hawaiian rock carvings include well-known Egyptian motifs and even a few hieroglyphics. The three main sites are: (1) the great boulders at Luahiwa, Lanai; (2) the old landing at Anaehoomalu; and (3) at Kii, Kauai. The evidence for an Egyptian presence is even stronger in New Guinea, where the Egyptians may have had a gold-mining colony. Other ancient cultures also frequented New Guinea, where Sumerian beads and bronze weapons have been found by Australian archeologists. Further, there seems to have been a thriving market in the Middle East for bird-of-paradise skins, which could only have come from New Guinea. (Knudsen, Ruth; "Egyptian Signs in the Hawaiian Islands," Epigraphic Society, Occasional Publications, 12:190, 1984.)"

The basis that I have for sickle cell being a link between ancient Kemet and those populations of Asia and the South Pacific is.

" We conducted a molecular investigation of the presence of sicklemia in six predynastic Egyptian mummies (about 3200 BC) from the Anthropological and Ethnographic Museum of Turin. Previous studies of these remains showed the presence of severe anemia, while histological preparations of mummified tissues revealed hemolytic disorders."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11148985

quote:
The problem you have is that the environment determines phenotype.
I've frequently heard some people attempt to explain the robust features of "Niger-Congo" speakers as being the result of humidity in the tropics.

 -  -
 -

The problem with that nonsense is that we have only been in the tropics of Africa as a whole since the 6th century B.C.E. Prior to this period we lived in Northern Africa along side those narrow nose Ethiopic populations and Nilotes. The robust "true Negroid" phenotype was reported to exist and at the singular largest segment at over 1/3 of the population despite being in a dry desert environment (for over 30,000 years)

I believe that this is a sinister plot (by Caucasians) to explain away that recent African expansion which was in fact centered throughout the World's tropical belt. The belt extends from Africa (the Nile Valley originally) to the Americas and into southern Asia. Remnants of that population expansion today are along that belt as indicated by the sickle cell haplotype.

 -

In Southeast Asia there is a blatant denial of the African relationship by Caucasians. In the face of being pheno-culturally identical and even having traditions verifying a recent expansion from Africa there is a persistent effort by Caucasians to disconnect these melaninated populations.

The case in central America-Mexico is being picked apart daily by the conscious community on social media. That was the Olmec region which was originally settled by Nile Valley Africans and remained a hub for Africans to this day. Caucasians have attempted to use an inflated transatlantic enslavement of SOME Africans as a way to explain the heavy presence of Africans through regions of the Americas.

Posts: 313 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Akachi:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

What do Native Americans Called African AMericans look like???

What do Native Americans called Afro Brazilians look like???

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

All three Groups look African. They don't look Asian Black, They look African Black.

Clyde is right and yall keep trying to claim the mongoloids as the only Native Americans, when African americans are Black Native Americans.

Stop trying to win debates, and actually LISTEN to each other..

Good Job Clyde

You are right. I am thinking the DNA of these folks would be the same if what you are saying is true.

"Pure" indigenous Native Americans will have the same DNA as Africans in America.

But they don't.

Your argument is based purely on conjecture not hard facts. Curly hair is not unique to Africa. Millions of black folks in the Pacific have curly hair and are not Africans. And these same people are right next to other populations of black folks in the Pacific with straight hair. Both are equally native, indigenous and aboriginal. Hair is subject to random mutation and genetic drift as much as any other trait of the human body.

Why Ignore that those Pacific Islanders are all variations of Africoid people who simply migrated and settled in those parts of the World thousands of years ago? Those melaninated Africoid Southern-Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders actually say that they migrated from Africa.

The fact that not only are those Asians phenotypically identical to Africans, but they also carry African blood types as indicated by the spread of maria - maria resistance (sickle cell, G6PD etc). This can only be passed down from common ancestry not "adaption". The map below CLEARLY shows that this phenomena is an African one by the distribution. First the distribution of the U.S. matches the distribution of the black population concentrated in the low land south. The situation in Europe is also telling because it is in the areas where we know was very recently (500 years ago) dominated by African Muslims (Moors).
 -

Once again we see Africoid haplotypes for sickle cell distributed from Africa all the way into southeast Asia.

 -

This fact should lay to rest any attempts to say that we are not closely related to the melaninated peoples of Asia. They literally share our unique blood line.

Sickle cell is not DNA. Surely you aren't claiming that the DNA of people in New Guinea is the same as the DNA of people in Africa. These people are descendants of the first people to leave Africa 60,000 years ago. So how are they still African? And which of these people claim they "recently" came from Africa?

The problem you have is that the environment determines phenotype. And Africa itself is not the basis of "blackness", but tropical environments are. Anywhere there are tropical environments you will find people who are tropically adapted. And mosquitos are not unique to Africa either. You also find large numbers of mosquitos anywhere that is hot and moist, ie. a tropical environment. Therefore, you are making a false equivalency. Having sickle cell traits does not equate to recent African ancestry. Because it could simply be an adaptation to local environmental conditions as opposed to some 'recent' migrations from Africa. Note that all these populations inhabit the same latitude as central Africa around the equator, which is the primary location of tropical environments on the planet. Therefore, it is an environment issue, not Africa that is causing the similarities in phenotype and blood type.

It has been shown numerous times that the DNA of Pacific Islanders, Andaman Islanders, Australian Aborigines and Papua New Guineans is far from Africans, even though they look similar by phenotype.....

This is false. you have failed to read the literature. you need to do your own research.


 -

.
The research shows Blacks in Africa and the Pacific share DNA.
.

Come on Clyde, these people are not recent migrants from Afrca......

quote:

The population history of Aboriginal Australians remains largely uncharacterized. Here we generate high-coverage
genomes for 83 Aboriginal Australians (speakers of Pama–Nyungan languages) and 25 Papuans from the New Guinea
Highlands. We find that Papuan and Aboriginal Australian ancestors diversified 25–40 thousand years ago (kya), suggesting
pre-Holocene population structure in the ancient continent of Sahul (Australia, New Guinea and Tasmania). However,
all of the studied Aboriginal Australians descend from a single founding population that differentiated ~10–32 kya.
We infer a population expansion in northeast Australia during the Holocene epoch (past 10,000 years) associated with
limited gene flow from this region to the rest of Australia, consistent with the spread of the Pama–Nyungan languages.
We estimate that Aboriginal Australians and Papuans diverged from Eurasians 51–72 kya, following a single out-of-Africa
dispersal, and subsequently admixed with archaic populations. Finally, we report evidence of selection in Aboriginal
Australians potentially associated with living in the desert

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308391208_A_genomic_history_of_Aboriginal_Australia
You keep talking about the Australians, I am talking about the Melanesians. These are two different populations. It is the Melanesian who came recently into the Pacific .

Stop talking about things you have no knowledge of. Its alright to have an opinion--but at least do some background reading before you accept Eurocentric research as the final statement about the relationship between Black people.

You just don't get it. For the past 200 years researchers admitted that the Africans, Dravidians, Melanesians, and Australians were all negroes. Now the genetics research shows that the haplogroups of Eurasia are founded on haplogroup L3(M.N), that had to have originated and expanded across Africa, before the Australian exit from Africa into Asia 60kya. This is why the Australians took L3(M,N) to Asia, after it originated in Africa.

Many researchers fail to recognize that there is a craniometric difference between Australoids /Australians representatives of the OOA population, Mongoloids and Melanoids; craniometric differences that indicate two migrations of the Black Variety into the Pacific and East Asia.
.

 -


.
Tsuenehiko Hanihare discussed the phenotypic variations between these populations(1). Tsuenehiko classified these people into three major populations Southeast Asian Mongoloids (Polynesians), the Australians or Austroloid type and the Nicobar and Andaman (Melanoid) samples which he found lie between the predominately Southeast Asian and Australoid/Australian type (1).


The Australian aborigines and Melanesians show cranonical variates and represent two distinct Black populations(2).[/] The Australoids or Australians live mainly in Australia and the highland regions of Oceania, the Melanoid people on the otherhand live in the coastal regions of Near Oceania and Fiji. D.J de Laubenfels discussed the variety of Blacks found in Asia.[b] Laubenfiels explained that Negroids/Melanoids such as the Tasmanians are characterized by wooly black hair and sparse body hair (2). Australoids or Australians on the otherhand have curly, wavy or straight hair and abundant body hair. Other differences between these Black populations include Negroid / Melanoid brows being vertical and without eyebrow ridges, whereas Australoid brows are sloping and with prominent ridges (2).


.

 -

.
This led M. Pietrusewky to recognize two separate colonizations of the Pacific by morphologically distinct populations one Polynesian and the other Melanesian (3). Pietrusewky’s research indicates a clear separation between the Australian-Melanesian crania and the Polynesian crania (3). The findings indicate an origin for the Polynesians in Southeast Asia (3-5), and an early Australo-Melanesian presence in East Asia as discussed in the earlier comment.


Laubenfels argues that the Australians are remnants of the original African migration to the region 60kya (2). This view is supported by David Bulbeck who found that the Australian craniometrics are different from the Mongoloid (Polynesian), and Melanoid crania metrics (4). This research indicates that whereas Australian aborigine crania agree with the archaic population of Asia and first group of Africans to exit Africa, they fail to correspond to the Sahulland crania which are distinctly of Southwest Pacific or Melanoid affinity (2,4). This suggests that by the rise of Sahulland there were two distinct Black populations in Asia one Austroloid and the other Melanoid (4).


The Melanesian type does not appear in East Asia (Siberia) until after 5000 BC. This is thousands of years after Luizia and Eva Neharon had existed in Brazil and Mexico respectively.

By the Neolithic the Melanoids or Papuans are associated with millet cultivation at Yangshao and Lougshan according to Pietrusewky’s work (5). Tsang argues that the probable homeland of the Austronesian speakers was the Pearl River delta, here the Melanoid people cultivated millet (6). Sagart believes that there is a Proto-Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian family of languages based on the millet culture the Melanoids introduced to China (7).

The craniometrics make it clear the Australians are not related to the Melanesians. Stop spreading lies about Melanesians and Africans not being related



Reference:

1. Tsunehiko Hanihare, Interpretation of craniofacial variations and diversification of East and Southeast Asia. In Bioarchaeology of Southeast Asia. (Eds.) Marc Oxenhan and Nancy Tayles (pp.91-111). Cambridge, 2005.

2. D.J. Laubenfels, Australoids, Negroids and Negroes: A suggested explanation for their distinct distributions. Annals Association of Am. Geographers, 58(1), 1968: 42-50.

3. Michael Pietrusewky, A multivariate craniometric study of the prehistoric and modern inhabitants of Southeast Asia, East Asia and surrounding regions:A human kaleidoscope. Cambridge Studies in Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology, No. 43, 2006: 59-90.

4. David Bulbeck, Australian Aboriginal craniometrics as construed through FORDISC, 2005. Retrieved: 4/2/2008: http://arts.anu.edu.au/bullda/oz_craniometrics.html

5. M. Pietrusewsky, The Physical anthropology of the Pacific, East Asia: A multivariate craniometric analysis. . In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology,Linguistics and Genetics (pp.201-229). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.

6. Tsang Cheng-Hwa, Recent discoveries at Tapenkeng culture sites in Taiwan;Implications for the problem of Austronesian origins. In The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics ,(Eds) L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (pp.63-74). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.

7. L. Sagart, Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian an Updated and improved argument. In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics (pp.161-176). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.

Posts: 11933 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let's look at the evolution of homo sapiens. Note that the forehead of the earliest humans were larger than contemporary Blacks.

 -

The Eves were also African


 -

The Aurignacian people who replaced the Neanderthal looked like this


Below is the ancestor of Neanderthals and Australians.

 -

The Australians retain the physiology of the first homo sapiens. It appears that the first anatomically modern humans may have had straight hair.

The original migrants OOA population had different features than the contemporary Africans.

Here is an Australian note the brow ridges and hair. Australoids/Australian negroes on the other hand have curly, wavy or straight hair and abundant body hair.

 -


Here is a contemporary African.The African Negroes are characterized by wooly black hair and sparse body hair


 -


You can clearly see differences between the Australian and African type; while both individuals are described as Negroes you will note that the forehead of the Australian matches in many ways the cranium of earlier hominid forms dating back to the rise of homo sapiens sapiens in Africa.

 -

Any physical anthropologists would note these changes. The coastal Melanesians usually show mixed Australian-African features or features commonly found among Africans--not Australians.\


Fijians

 -


Australians


 -

A simple observation of Melanesians and Aborigines make it clear that the former population resemble Africans moreso than Aborigines--the original settlers of Asia.


The ancestors of the Melanesians and Polynesians probably lived in East Asia. The late appearance of Melanoid people from East Asia on the shore areas of Oceania would explain the differences between the genetic make up of Melanesians living in the highlands and Melanesians living along the shore [1-2].

The skeletal evidence from East Asia [3-7,12] suggests that the TMRCAs of the Polynesians and some of the coastal Melanesians may be mainland East Asia, not Taiwan. The ancestral population for the shoreline Melanesians was probably forced from East Asia by Proto-Polynesians as they were pushed into Southeast Asia by the Han or contemporary Chinese. This would explain the genetic diversity existing among shoreline Melanesians, in comparison to the genetic homogeneity among isolated inland Melanesian, like the Highland New Guineans.

There were two Shang Dynasties, one Melanoid (Qiang-Shang) and the other Proto-Polynesian (Yin-Shang). The first Shang Dynasty was founded by Proto-Melanesians or Melanoids belonging to the Yueh tribe called Qiang [7]. The Qiang lived in Qiangfeng, a country to the west of Yin-Shang, Shensi and Yunnan [7-11,13].

The archaeological evidence also indicates that the Polynesians probably originated in East Asia [4,6-7,12-13]. Consequently, the Polynesian migration probably began in East Asia, not Southeast Asia. Taiwan genetically probably belongs to the early Polynesians who settled Taiwan before they expanded into outer Oceania.

Given the archaeological record of intimate contact between Proto-Polynesians and Proto-Melanoids, neither a “slow boat” or “express train” explains the genetic relationship between the Melanesian and Polynesian populations. This record makes it clear that these populations lived in intimate contact for thousands of years and during this extended period of interactions both groups probably exchanged genes.


References
1. Manfred Kayser, Oscar Lao, Kathrin Saar, Silke Brauer, Xingyu Wang, Peter Nürnberg, Ronald J. Trent, Mark Stoneking Genome-wide Analysis Indicates More Asian than Melanesian Ancestry of Polynesians. The American Journal of Human Genetics - 10 January 2008, 82 (1); pp. 194-198.

2. J. S. Fredlaender, F.R. Friedlaender, J.A. Hodgson, M. Stoltz, G. Koki, G. Horvat,S. Zhadanov, T. G. Schurr and D.A. Merriwether, Melanesian mtDNA complexity, PLoS ONE, 2(2) 2007: e248.

3 F. Weidenreich F., Bull. Nat. Hist. Soc. Peiping 13, (1938-40): p. 163.

4. Kwang-chih Chang, Archaeology of ancient China (Yale University Press, 1986) p. 64.

5. G. H. R. von Koenigswald, A giant fossil hominoid from the pleistocene of Southern China, Anthropology Pap. Am Museum of Natural History, no.43, 1952, pp. 301-309).

6. K. C. Chang, The archaeology of ancient China, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1977): p. 76

7. Winters, Clyde Ahmad, “The Far Eastern Origin of the Tamils”, Journal of Tamil Studies, no27 (June 1985), pp. 65-92.

8. K. C. Chang, Shang Civilization, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1980) pp. 227-230.

9. C. A. Winters, The Dravido-Harappa Colonization of Central Asia, Central Asiatic Journal, (1990) 34 (1-2), pp. 120-144.

10. Y. Kan, The Bronze culture of western Yunnan, Bull. Of the Ancient Orient Museum (Tokyo), 7 (1985), pp. 47-91.

11. S. S. Ling, A study of the Raft, Outrigger, Double, and Deck canoes of ancient China, the Pacific, and the Indian Ocean. The Institute of Ethnology Academic Sinica. Nankang, Taipei Taiwan, 1970.

12. Kwang-chih Chang, “Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in South China”, Current Anthropology, 5 (1964): pp. 359-375: 375).

13. Winters,Clyde Ahmad, “Dravidian Settlements in ancient Polynesia”, India Past and Present 3, no2 (1986): pp. 225-241. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Posts: 11933 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Akachi:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:Sickle cell is not DNA. Surely you aren't claiming that the DNA of people in New Guinea is the same as the DNA of people in Africa.
That is a BLOOD LINEAGE... However you want to slice it that is directly tied to a core origin with Niger-Congo speakers now in West, South and Central Africa. This common blood lineage is proof that the relationship between Africans and Southeast Asians is not superficial. Once again this BLOOD LINEAGE is only passed from parent to offspring..., and not some sporadic "tropical" phenomena. Coupled with the fact that these people state that they actually came from Africa it's indisputable proof of a more recent expansion of those particular Africoid types.

I link those sickle cell-maria carrying people in Southeast Asia-South Pacific to a recent expansion from the Nile Valley rather than the more ancient ones. The facts that the ancient Kemetic presence has been proven to have existed in the South Pacific and Australia.

"Ancient Egyptians In Hawaii Most people tend to think of the ancient Egyptians as stay-at-homes who were too busy building pyramids to explore far lands. But many artifacts from the South Pacific and even Hawaii hint that they were otherwise. Some Hawaiian rock carvings include well-known Egyptian motifs and even a few hieroglyphics. The three main sites are: (1) the great boulders at Luahiwa, Lanai; (2) the old landing at Anaehoomalu; and (3) at Kii, Kauai. The evidence for an Egyptian presence is even stronger in New Guinea, where the Egyptians may have had a gold-mining colony. Other ancient cultures also frequented New Guinea, where Sumerian beads and bronze weapons have been found by Australian archeologists. Further, there seems to have been a thriving market in the Middle East for bird-of-paradise skins, which could only have come from New Guinea. (Knudsen, Ruth; "Egyptian Signs in the Hawaiian Islands," Epigraphic Society, Occasional Publications, 12:190, 1984.)"

The basis that I have for sickle cell being a link between ancient Kemet and those populations of Asia and the South Pacific is.

" We conducted a molecular investigation of the presence of sicklemia in six predynastic Egyptian mummies (about 3200 BC) from the Anthropological and Ethnographic Museum of Turin. Previous studies of these remains showed the presence of severe anemia, while histological preparations of mummified tissues revealed hemolytic disorders."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11148985

quote:
The problem you have is that the environment determines phenotype.
I've frequently heard some people attempt to explain the robust features of "Niger-Congo" speakers as being the result of humidity in the tropics.

 -  -
 -

The problem with that nonsense is that we have only been in the tropics of Africa as a whole since the 6th century B.C.E. Prior to this period we lived in Northern Africa along side those narrow nose Ethiopic populations and Nilotes. The robust "true Negroid" phenotype was reported to exist and at the singular largest segment at over 1/3 of the population despite being in a dry desert environment (for over 30,000 years)

"the tropics" is an environmental phenomenon centered around the equator and the "tropic of Cancer". Humans originated in a tropical environment.
 -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropics


quote:
Originally posted by Akachi:
I believe that this is a sinister plot (by Caucasians) to explain away that recent African expansion which was in fact centered throughout the World's tropical belt. The belt extends from Africa (the Nile Valley originally) to the Americas and into southern Asia. Remnants of that population expansion today are along that belt as indicated by the sickle cell haplotype.

 -

In Southeast Asia there is a blatant denial of the African relationship by Caucasians. In the face of being pheno-culturally identical and even having traditions verifying a recent expansion from Africa there is a persistent effort by Caucasians to disconnect these melaninated populations.

Whatever conspiracy you believe these Caucasians have, how on earth do you claim that all black folks in South Asia who live in tropical environments are the result of "recent" African migrations? These people have been there since the first out of Africa migrations to Asia. And of course they live in tropical environments and therefore this is why they still retain their "tropically adapted" phenotype similar to the first Out of Africa migrants.

There is no coincidence that many of these populations you are referring to are smack dab in the middle of the tropical zone:
 -

quote:
Originally posted by Akachi:
The case in central America-Mexico is being picked apart daily by the conscious community on social media. That was the Olmec region which was originally settled by Nile Valley Africans and remained a hub for Africans to this day. Caucasians have attempted to use an inflated transatlantic enslavement of SOME Africans as a way to explain the heavy presence of Africans through regions of the Americas.

OK. So lets leave the conspiracy theories aside then. Where is the DNA evidence showing how these people outside Africa are closely related to Africans as in recent migrants? You know you are contradicting the whole out of Africa migration theory right? Because according to you, black people around the world are not the result of ancient migrations from Africa living in tropical environments but recent migrants.

And the DNA supports the ancient migration:
 -
https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/7/5/1206/604030/Unravelling-the-Genetic-History-of-Negritos-and

Posts: 7063 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lamin
Member
Member # 5777

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for lamin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
ITS CALLED FANTASY
.

Yoruba travelers to Brazil note that traditional black Brazilians speak an old-fashioned Yoruba and their Candomble gods are actuallyzailians Yoruba gods such as Xango, Oxossi, Yemanja--all from the Orixas tradition with Olurun as main god.

Black Brazilians travel yearly to Oshogbo in Nigeria to celebrate some Candomble festivities.


Black Brazilians traveled back to Africa and founded the city of Lagos("lake" in Portuguese), Nigeria and introduced Brazilian architecture there. Some went to Benin Republic formerly know as Dahomey.

The following is an example of blacks who were transported to Brazil from West Africa during the slavery era and wrote about their experiences.

http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/baquaqua/
summary.html


Blacks were also routinely transported to North America as the following demonstrates. it was a very onerous journey but many survived to talk about it.

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/becomingamer/growth/text5/diallo.pdf

Posts: 5116 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lamin
Member
Member # 5777

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for lamin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Blacks from Fiji always claim that when they travel to the West people always ask "where in Africa are you from". Even in the U.S. they are assumed to be from Africa--because of their non-American accents.

Point is: the blacks from Fiji, Andaman Islands, Solomon Islands(Melanesia), left Africa thousands of years ago and as a result their DNA profiles underwent a number of shufflings on that DNA string. ACDEF were rearranged many times just due to random mutational changes. Yet the African phenotype remained intact because of the similarity in geography between Africa and the East Pacific.

As a result, Fijians, Andaman Islanders, etc. are Africans merely on the grounds of taxonomy. Just as East Asians and many Native American groups in the Americas share phenotypical traits--hair, eye structures, color, etc.

Note that one of the key phenotypical markers for being of the African type of humanity is the hair type which is unique among humans and even mammals in tropical regions. Only about 16-20% of humanity carry that type of hair form which can be easily identified both macroscopically and under a microscope.

Posts: 5116 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Akachi:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

What do Native Americans Called African AMericans look like???

What do Native Americans called Afro Brazilians look like???

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

All three Groups look African. They don't look Asian Black, They look African Black.

Clyde is right and yall keep trying to claim the mongoloids as the only Native Americans, when African americans are Black Native Americans.

Stop trying to win debates, and actually LISTEN to each other..

Good Job Clyde

You are right. I am thinking the DNA of these folks would be the same if what you are saying is true.

"Pure" indigenous Native Americans will have the same DNA as Africans in America.

But they don't.

Your argument is based purely on conjecture not hard facts. Curly hair is not unique to Africa. Millions of black folks in the Pacific have curly hair and are not Africans. And these same people are right next to other populations of black folks in the Pacific with straight hair. Both are equally native, indigenous and aboriginal. Hair is subject to random mutation and genetic drift as much as any other trait of the human body.

Why Ignore that those Pacific Islanders are all variations of Africoid people who simply migrated and settled in those parts of the World thousands of years ago? Those melaninated Africoid Southern-Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders actually say that they migrated from Africa.

The fact that not only are those Asians phenotypically identical to Africans, but they also carry African blood types as indicated by the spread of maria - maria resistance (sickle cell, G6PD etc). This can only be passed down from common ancestry not "adaption". The map below CLEARLY shows that this phenomena is an African one by the distribution. First the distribution of the U.S. matches the distribution of the black population concentrated in the low land south. The situation in Europe is also telling because it is in the areas where we know was very recently (500 years ago) dominated by African Muslims (Moors).
 -

Once again we see Africoid haplotypes for sickle cell distributed from Africa all the way into southeast Asia.

 -

This fact should lay to rest any attempts to say that we are not closely related to the melaninated peoples of Asia. They literally share our unique blood line.

Sickle cell is not DNA. Surely you aren't claiming that the DNA of people in New Guinea is the same as the DNA of people in Africa. These people are descendants of the first people to leave Africa 60,000 years ago. So how are they still African? And which of these people claim they "recently" came from Africa?

The problem you have is that the environment determines phenotype. And Africa itself is not the basis of "blackness", but tropical environments are. Anywhere there are tropical environments you will find people who are tropically adapted. And mosquitos are not unique to Africa either. You also find large numbers of mosquitos anywhere that is hot and moist, ie. a tropical environment. Therefore, you are making a false equivalency. Having sickle cell traits does not equate to recent African ancestry. Because it could simply be an adaptation to local environmental conditions as opposed to some 'recent' migrations from Africa. Note that all these populations inhabit the same latitude as central Africa around the equator, which is the primary location of tropical environments on the planet. Therefore, it is an environment issue, not Africa that is causing the similarities in phenotype and blood type.

It has been shown numerous times that the DNA of Pacific Islanders, Andaman Islanders, Australian Aborigines and Papua New Guineans is far from Africans, even though they look similar by phenotype.....

This is false. you have failed to read the literature. you need to do your own research.


 -

.
The research shows Blacks in Africa and the Pacific share DNA.
.

Come on Clyde, these people are not recent migrants from Afrca......

quote:

The population history of Aboriginal Australians remains largely uncharacterized. Here we generate high-coverage
genomes for 83 Aboriginal Australians (speakers of Pama–Nyungan languages) and 25 Papuans from the New Guinea
Highlands. We find that Papuan and Aboriginal Australian ancestors diversified 25–40 thousand years ago (kya), suggesting
pre-Holocene population structure in the ancient continent of Sahul (Australia, New Guinea and Tasmania). However,
all of the studied Aboriginal Australians descend from a single founding population that differentiated ~10–32 kya.
We infer a population expansion in northeast Australia during the Holocene epoch (past 10,000 years) associated with
limited gene flow from this region to the rest of Australia, consistent with the spread of the Pama–Nyungan languages.
We estimate that Aboriginal Australians and Papuans diverged from Eurasians 51–72 kya, following a single out-of-Africa
dispersal, and subsequently admixed with archaic populations. Finally, we report evidence of selection in Aboriginal
Australians potentially associated with living in the desert

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308391208_A_genomic_history_of_Aboriginal_Australia
You keep talking about the Australians, I am talking about the Melanesians. These are two different populations. It is the Melanesian who came recently into the Pacific .

Stop talking about things you have no knowledge of. Its alright to have an opinion--but at least do some background reading before you accept Eurocentric research as the final statement about the relationship between Black people.

You just don't get it. For the past 200 years researchers admitted that the Africans, Dravidians, Melanesians, and Australians were all negroes. Now the genetics research shows that the haplogroups of Eurasia are founded on haplogroup L3(M.N), that had to have originated and expanded across Africa, before the Australian exit from Africa into Asia 60kya. This is why the Australians took L3(M,N) to Asia, after it originated in Africa.

Many researchers fail to recognize that there is a craniometric difference between Australoids /Australians representatives of the OOA population, Mongoloids and Melanoids; craniometric differences that indicate two migrations of the Black Variety into the Pacific and East Asia.
.

 -


.
Tsuenehiko Hanihare discussed the phenotypic variations between these populations(1). Tsuenehiko classified these people into three major populations Southeast Asian Mongoloids (Polynesians), the Australians or Austroloid type and the Nicobar and Andaman (Melanoid) samples which he found lie between the predominately Southeast Asian and Australoid/Australian type (1).


The Australian aborigines and Melanesians show cranonical variates and represent two distinct Black populations(2).[/] The Australoids or Australians live mainly in Australia and the highland regions of Oceania, the Melanoid people on the otherhand live in the coastal regions of Near Oceania and Fiji. D.J de Laubenfels discussed the variety of Blacks found in Asia.[b] Laubenfiels explained that Negroids/Melanoids such as the Tasmanians are characterized by wooly black hair and sparse body hair (2). Australoids or Australians on the otherhand have curly, wavy or straight hair and abundant body hair. Other differences between these Black populations include Negroid / Melanoid brows being vertical and without eyebrow ridges, whereas Australoid brows are sloping and with prominent ridges (2).


.

 -

.
This led M. Pietrusewky to recognize two separate colonizations of the Pacific by morphologically distinct populations one Polynesian and the other Melanesian (3). Pietrusewky’s research indicates a clear separation between the Australian-Melanesian crania and the Polynesian crania (3). The findings indicate an origin for the Polynesians in Southeast Asia (3-5), and an early Australo-Melanesian presence in East Asia as discussed in the earlier comment.


Laubenfels argues that the Australians are remnants of the original African migration to the region 60kya (2). This view is supported by David Bulbeck who found that the Australian craniometrics are different from the Mongoloid (Polynesian), and Melanoid crania metrics (4). This research indicates that whereas Australian aborigine crania agree with the archaic population of Asia and first group of Africans to exit Africa, they fail to correspond to the Sahulland crania which are distinctly of Southwest Pacific or Melanoid affinity (2,4). This suggests that by the rise of Sahulland there were two distinct Black populations in Asia one Austroloid and the other Melanoid (4).


The Melanesian type does not appear in East Asia (Siberia) until after 5000 BC. This is thousands of years after Luizia and Eva Neharon had existed in Brazil and Mexico respectively.

By the Neolithic the Melanoids or Papuans are associated with millet cultivation at Yangshao and Lougshan according to Pietrusewky’s work (5). Tsang argues that the probable homeland of the Austronesian speakers was the Pearl River delta, here the Melanoid people cultivated millet (6). Sagart believes that there is a Proto-Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian family of languages based on the millet culture the Melanoids introduced to China (7).

The craniometrics make it clear the Australians are not related to the Melanesians. Stop spreading lies about Melanesians and Africans not being related



Reference:

1. Tsunehiko Hanihare, Interpretation of craniofacial variations and diversification of East and Southeast Asia. In Bioarchaeology of Southeast Asia. (Eds.) Marc Oxenhan and Nancy Tayles (pp.91-111). Cambridge, 2005.

2. D.J. Laubenfels, Australoids, Negroids and Negroes: A suggested explanation for their distinct distributions. Annals Association of Am. Geographers, 58(1), 1968: 42-50.

3. Michael Pietrusewky, A multivariate craniometric study of the prehistoric and modern inhabitants of Southeast Asia, East Asia and surrounding regions:A human kaleidoscope. Cambridge Studies in Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology, No. 43, 2006: 59-90.

4. David Bulbeck, Australian Aboriginal craniometrics as construed through FORDISC, 2005. Retrieved: 4/2/2008: http://arts.anu.edu.au/bullda/oz_craniometrics.html

5. M. Pietrusewsky, The Physical anthropology of the Pacific, East Asia: A multivariate craniometric analysis. . In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology,Linguistics and Genetics (pp.201-229). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.

6. Tsang Cheng-Hwa, Recent discoveries at Tapenkeng culture sites in Taiwan;Implications for the problem of Austronesian origins. In The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics ,(Eds) L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (pp.63-74). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.

7. L. Sagart, Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian an Updated and improved argument. In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics (pp.161-176). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.

Clyde you haven't shown that Melanesians are recent African migrants. Verbal legends are not the same as actual DNA. Melanesian DNA is not closely related to Africans.

The Main DNA haplogroups of the Pacific are M and N lineages along with some Q lineages, plus some B lineages. Those are not "African" lineages:
 -

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0052022

M haplogroups in Melanesia:
 -

Again, your claims should be backed up by evidence across the board. I have no doubt that there have been more recent migrations to parts of South Asia after the original OOA migrations, but those migrations were tiny and did not change the overwhelming majority of the populations already in place from the original OOA event. And those populations are black and have similar features to Africans because they live in tropical environments similar to most black Africans, who are also tropically adapted.

You are basically arguing that somehow tropical adaptation is something unique to Africa when it is not. It is an environmental adaptation and not an "African" adaptation.

And on the point of Aboriginal migrations to the Americas from Asia, there are many scholars who are beginning to acknowledge this.

quote:

A stunning discovery by US and Brazilian geneticists has provided definitive evidence for a controversial theory that the Siberian ancestors of modern Native Americans were not the first people to colonise the Americas.

A team of US and Brazilian geneticists, led by Dr David Reich, of Harvard Medical School’s Department of Genetics, has shown that members of the Surui, Karitiana and Xavante peoples of Brazil’s Amazonia region, carry distinctive DNA sequences that identify them as the descendants of an earlier wave of colonists known as the Australoids.

These people, said to have left Africa 50,000 years ago, are related to Australia’s Aborigines, the Onge people of India’s Andaman Islands, and Papua New Guineans.

Dr Reich and his colleagues have also identified Australoid genetic motifs in the indigenous Mixe people of the eastern Highlands of Mexico’s Oaxaca state.

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2015/07/22/discovery-change-view-human-history/
Posts: 7063 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Moderator
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Akachi:

Once again we see Africoid haplotypes for sickle cell distributed from Africa all the way into southeast Asia.

 -

This fact should lay to rest any attempts to say that we are not closely related to the melaninated peoples of Asia. They literally share our unique blood line. [/QB]

The above chart is showing sickle cell (HbS) as a light brown color. The only place that light brown color is showing on the map in South East Asia is in part of India.
Posts: 31207 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Moderator
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
instead of admitting that Africans carried all of these genes first.


That's a lie

People who left Africa have been outside Africa have been outside Africa at least 60,000 years or 100,000 or more.

That is a long period of time.
Long enough for multiple new unique haplogroups to form outside of Africa

Posts: 31207 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Akachi
Member
Member # 21711

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Akachi     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:
Originally posted by Akachi:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

What do Native Americans Called African AMericans look like???

What do Native Americans called Afro Brazilians look like???

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

All three Groups look African. They don't look Asian Black, They look African Black.

Clyde is right and yall keep trying to claim the mongoloids as the only Native Americans, when African americans are Black Native Americans.

Stop trying to win debates, and actually LISTEN to each other..

Good Job Clyde

You are right. I am thinking the DNA of these folks would be the same if what you are saying is true.

"Pure" indigenous Native Americans will have the same DNA as Africans in America.

But they don't.

Your argument is based purely on conjecture not hard facts. Curly hair is not unique to Africa. Millions of black folks in the Pacific have curly hair and are not Africans. And these same people are right next to other populations of black folks in the Pacific with straight hair. Both are equally native, indigenous and aboriginal. Hair is subject to random mutation and genetic drift as much as any other trait of the human body.

Why Ignore that those Pacific Islanders are all variations of Africoid people who simply migrated and settled in those parts of the World thousands of years ago? Those melaninated Africoid Southern-Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders actually say that they migrated from Africa.

The fact that not only are those Asians phenotypically identical to Africans, but they also carry African blood types as indicated by the spread of maria - maria resistance (sickle cell, G6PD etc). This can only be passed down from common ancestry not "adaption". The map below CLEARLY shows that this phenomena is an African one by the distribution. First the distribution of the U.S. matches the distribution of the black population concentrated in the low land south. The situation in Europe is also telling because it is in the areas where we know was very recently (500 years ago) dominated by African Muslims (Moors).
 -

Once again we see Africoid haplotypes for sickle cell distributed from Africa all the way into southeast Asia.

 -

This fact should lay to rest any attempts to say that we are not closely related to the melaninated peoples of Asia. They literally share our unique blood line.

Akachi you are right Oceanic and Africans share a common bloodline.

Today people have stopped calling the Oceanic people Negroes. But up until the 1990's the generic term Negro was used for Blacks worldwide. For the past 200 years it was used to identify Blacks in Africa and Asia. This was confirmed by crianiometric meseaurement and blood grouping. I shouldn't have to tell you this, but crianiometrics can distinguish Negroes from Mongoloid or Caucasian populations.

 -

DNA is showing the same correspondence.


 -

Tonga step pyramid


First, the Fijians claim they came from Africa. We know a megalithic culture expanded from Africa into the Indian/Pacific Ocean areas after 2000 BC.


 -

Pyramid of Mauritius


Secondly, African place names are found in the Pacific and correspondences between lexical items.


  • Common Terms:

    English Manding Melanesian Polynesian

    arrow bye,bya fana,pane fana,pana

    Father baba babi papa

    Man tye ta taga-ta

    head ku tequ-qa tuku-noa

    pot daga taga taga

    vase bara pora,bora bora-bora

    fish yege ige, ika ika

    ox, cattle konga,gunga kede kuda



The ancient Austronesians cultivated rice, millet, yams and sugarcane. (Bellwood 1990, p.92)

It would appear that the Polynesians learned agriculture from the Manding as illustrated below:

  • Polynesian English Manding

    *talun fallow, land daa

    *tanem to plant, sow daa

    *suluq torch, jet of flame suu

    *kuDen cooking pot,bowl ku

This evidence provides linguistic and anthropological support for the Fiji tradition. It is wrong that you guys deny a people history just because your European masters to do not present evidence in support of a native tradition.

If you keep waiting for Europeans to verify our history you will have a long wait.


Recently Williams John Page (1988) discussed the Lakato Hypothesis. The Lakato Hypothesis stated simply implies that the Melanesian people of Fiji were carried to the Pacific Islands by Indonesian maritime merchants after they had colonized parts of East and central Africa. In these Indonesian centers, Page (1988) believes that the Africans "gravitated into the Indonesian inspired trade". Page (1988) wrote that :
code:
"It is further suggested that the Lakato colonies in
Africa were the principal contributors to the earliest
settlements of Malagasy and responsible for the traces
of Indonesian influence in Africa which have endured into
modern times, as identified by previous investigators".

To support this hypothesis Page (1988) presents place names that are made up of African ethnic names (AEN) as roots for Fijian placenames. These toponyms include a multitude of hills, streams and villages composed of a simple AEN root plus a Fijian placenames e.g.,koro, wai-ni-, vatu and na-. Page (1988, p.34) found 270 AEN's forming part of Fijian place names (FPN). The interesting fact about the AEN and FPN cognates is that they are found in West Africa and not East Africa. (Page 1988, p.47)

This fact negates Page's (1988) hypothesis because there are no rivers in Africa that link East Africa and West Africa. This suggest that Africans who later settled West Africa must have been in the Pacific long before the Austronesians arrived on Madagascar. This view is supported by the fact that the classical mongoloid people did not arrive in the Pacific area until after 500 B.C.

Page (1988,p.66) believes that the AEN-FPN cognates are the result of the establishment of Indonesian colonies first along the Zambia river and from there into Central and Western Africa between the fourth and eleventh centuries A.D. During this period Bantu speakers are believed to have been incorporated into the Indonesian Lakota culture and between the eleventh to sixteenth A.D. settled in Melanesia by Lakota fleets. (Page 1988, p.66) Although Page's (1988,p.67) theory is interesting the fact that the AENs that are FPN's are prefixed to a multitude of hills, streams and villages" indicate that these place names are very old because the names for hills and streams are rarely changed.

Page (1988, p.67) noted four common prefixes used in the FPN's: Koro 'village,hill', wai-ni- 'water of'; vatu- 'stone'; and na- 'the'. These terms are closely related to Manding terms as illustrated below:
code:
FPN English Manding
koro hill kuru
koro village so-koro
wai-ni water of ba-ni 'course
of water'
vatu stone bete
na the ni

As illustrated above the AENs and Manding terms are analogous for 'hill', 'the' and 'of'. It would appear that the FPN /w/ corresponds to Manding /b/. Due to the thousands of miles separating the Manding and AENs, this cognate can be explained as loan words. Given the full agreement of these terms suggest a genetic relationship between AENs and Manding and descent from Paleo-African.

In addition to AENs serving as FPNs we find many toponyms in Oceania that corresponds to West African place names. Below we see 36 place names from Oceania and WestAfrica that share full correspondence. Manding ,Polynesian and Melanesian share many terms for kinship, dwellings, topographical features, dwellings and utensils.


  • WEST AFRICA OCEANIA
    Alamand Alamanda
    Alika Alika
    Alika Arika
    Babonga Babonga
    Bagola Bagola
    Batori Batori
    Bakaka Bakaka
    Bambula Bambula
    Buduri Buduri
    Burbura Burbura
    Gambia Gambia
    Kalobi Kalobi
    Kalonda Kalonda
    Kalonga Kalonga
    Kamalo Kamalo
    Kambia Kambia
    Kamori Kamori
    Kantara Kantara
    Karako Karako
    Kayata Kayata
    Kukula Kukula
    Magari Magari
    Magura Maguri
    Makara Makara
    Marosi Maros
    Oronga Oronga
    Palanka Palanka
    Parapara Parapara
    Sio Sio
    Sumbura Sumbura
    Tamana Tamana
    Taraba Taraba
    Taramal Taramal
    Teleki Teleki
    Totoki Totoki
    Varong Varong


See full article: http://olmec98.net/pac1.htm


In fact, they also share common placenames. Shared place names in Melanesia suggest that the Melanesians recently came to the Pacific from Africa, as claimed by the Fijians.

 -


The Melanesians probably belonged to the Niger-Congo and Dravidian speaking communities that formerly lived in the Sahara-Sahel region until 5-6kya. The Melanesians formerly lived in Africa and/or South China/Southeast Asia before they sailed to the Pacific Islans, probably as part of the Lapita migrations.

In figure 3 we see cognate Mande and Melanesian terms for vase, pot, arrow, cattle/ox, and fish. They also shared agricultural terms as well

  • Polynesian English Manding
    *talun fallow, land daa
    *tanem to plant daa
    *suluq torch, flame suu
    *kuDen cooking pot,bowl ku



 -

As you can see the Melanesians and Africans are not only negroid they also share genes, placenames and culture terms.

Thanks for the great information my man!!!
Posts: 313 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Akachi
Member
Member # 21711

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Akachi     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:
Originally posted by KING:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

What do Native Americans Called African AMericans look like???

What do Native Americans called Afro Brazilians look like???

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

All three Groups look African. They don't look Asian Black, They look African Black.

Clyde is right and yall keep trying to claim the mongoloids as the only Native Americans, when African americans are Black Native Americans.

Stop trying to win debates, and actually LISTEN to each other..

Good Job Clyde

You are right. I am thinking the DNA of these folks would be the same if what you are saying is true.

"Pure" indigenous Native Americans will have the same DNA as Africans in America.

But they don't.

Your argument is based purely on conjecture not hard facts. Curly hair is not unique to Africa. Millions of black folks in the Pacific have curly hair and are not Africans. And these same people are right next to other populations of black folks in the Pacific with straight hair. Both are equally native, indigenous and aboriginal. Hair is subject to random mutation and genetic drift as much as any other trait of the human body.

Doug M DNA is Fake, Read through the lies of the establishment. DNA HAS BIN FALSIFIED IN MANY PEOPLE.

DNA GETS THE RESULTS THE SCIENTIST DESIRE NOT THE TRUTH

LOOK AT THE GARIFUNA PEOPLE FOR EXAMPLE.

Also Read this

Doug M

Don't forget Doug that DNA is not reliable past the mother and father...

Also there was DNA Tests of people who were clearly African...who had DNA stating they were From places as far as East Asia

Man as 'black’for 50 years finds out he's probably not
 -

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-12/29/content_294229.htm


This is the Next particular strange phenomenon of DNA when an African Male took the dna Lie oops plunge:

 -

I Thought I Was Black - Until I Had An Ancestry DNA Test
http://www.arogundade.com/my-story-ancestry-dna-testing-for-ethnicity.html

DNA seems to get what the doctor or scientist desires. I would not hold to DNA testing to prove my point.

Scientist are liars

DNA is not fake. Eurocentrics just change the name for haplogroups to confuse people for example, the M1 haplogroup in Africa is called D4 in Asia.

Check out the video below it explains how gnetics can be used to support white Supremacy.


 -

EXACTLY!!!! They are Devils! That's why I am emphasizing the blood related haplotypes such as malaria-malaria resistance as concrete ALTERNATIVE proof to what is just good sense. No matter how people such as Doug try to slice it, it is a blood relationship that is passed only from parent to offspring that is SPECIFICALLY rooted in the " Niger-Congo" populations of Africa. There is no getting over that fact only to come back and say that people who share the exact same blood haplotypes are not related because they are assigned different letter haplogroups.

Doug is one of those regulars who is really sucked into the legitimacy of their bullshit, and I hate that he (and others) with conviction sometimes promotes that other melaninated people follow it. This agenda is clearly to denounce the strong unity among the melaninated/Africoid peoples of the World.

Posts: 313 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Akachi:
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:
Originally posted by KING:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

What do Native Americans Called African AMericans look like???

What do Native Americans called Afro Brazilians look like???

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

All three Groups look African. They don't look Asian Black, They look African Black.

Clyde is right and yall keep trying to claim the mongoloids as the only Native Americans, when African americans are Black Native Americans.

Stop trying to win debates, and actually LISTEN to each other..

Good Job Clyde

You are right. I am thinking the DNA of these folks would be the same if what you are saying is true.

"Pure" indigenous Native Americans will have the same DNA as Africans in America.

But they don't.

Your argument is based purely on conjecture not hard facts. Curly hair is not unique to Africa. Millions of black folks in the Pacific have curly hair and are not Africans. And these same people are right next to other populations of black folks in the Pacific with straight hair. Both are equally native, indigenous and aboriginal. Hair is subject to random mutation and genetic drift as much as any other trait of the human body.

Doug M DNA is Fake, Read through the lies of the establishment. DNA HAS BIN FALSIFIED IN MANY PEOPLE.

DNA GETS THE RESULTS THE SCIENTIST DESIRE NOT THE TRUTH

LOOK AT THE GARIFUNA PEOPLE FOR EXAMPLE.

Also Read this

Doug M

Don't forget Doug that DNA is not reliable past the mother and father...

Also there was DNA Tests of people who were clearly African...who had DNA stating they were From places as far as East Asia

Man as 'black’for 50 years finds out he's probably not
 -

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-12/29/content_294229.htm


This is the Next particular strange phenomenon of DNA when an African Male took the dna Lie oops plunge:

 -

I Thought I Was Black - Until I Had An Ancestry DNA Test
http://www.arogundade.com/my-story-ancestry-dna-testing-for-ethnicity.html

DNA seems to get what the doctor or scientist desires. I would not hold to DNA testing to prove my point.

Scientist are liars

DNA is not fake. Eurocentrics just change the name for haplogroups to confuse people for example, the M1 haplogroup in Africa is called D4 in Asia.

Check out the video below it explains how gnetics can be used to support white Supremacy.


 -

EXACTLY!!!! They are Devils! That's why I am emphasizing the blood related haplotypes such as malaria-malaria resistance as concrete ALTERNATIVE proof to what is just good sense. No matter how people such as Doug try to slice it, it is a blood relationship that is passed only from parent to offspring that is SPECIFICALLY rooted in the " Niger-Congo" populations of Africa. There is no getting over that fact only to come back and say that people who share the exact same blood haplotypes are not related because they are assigned different letter haplogroups.

Doug is one of those regulars who is really sucked into the legitimacy of their bullshit, and I hate that he (and others) with conviction sometimes promotes that other melaninated people follow it. This agenda is clearly to denounce the strong unity among the melaninated/Africoid peoples of the World.

Basically you are saying that the black people in tropical environments around the world are black because they recently came from Africa.

That is false. Period.

There is mounds of evidence and facts proving this.

You are simply making up all sorts pseudo scientific nonsense instead of simply following logic and facts.

Again, please explain how the DNA of Africans is FAR FROM the DNA of Melanesians?

There is no conspiracy about that. Either the facts back up your claim or they don't.

I am perfectly fine with the facts supporting black populations world wide based on environmental conditions. And I also understand that black populations have also existed outside tropical areas up until relatively recently (last 10,000 years) as a result of migration from tropical environments followed by adaptation to low UV Northern environments. The science and facts back this up.

Again, all of these populations are smack dab in the middle of tropical latitudes. That can't be a coincidence. And of course mosquitos thrive in moist tropical environments.....

 -

Posts: 7063 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Akachi:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

What do Native Americans Called African AMericans look like???

What do Native Americans called Afro Brazilians look like???

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

All three Groups look African. They don't look Asian Black, They look African Black.

Clyde is right and yall keep trying to claim the mongoloids as the only Native Americans, when African americans are Black Native Americans.

Stop trying to win debates, and actually LISTEN to each other..

Good Job Clyde

You are right. I am thinking the DNA of these folks would be the same if what you are saying is true.

"Pure" indigenous Native Americans will have the same DNA as Africans in America.

But they don't.

Your argument is based purely on conjecture not hard facts. Curly hair is not unique to Africa. Millions of black folks in the Pacific have curly hair and are not Africans. And these same people are right next to other populations of black folks in the Pacific with straight hair. Both are equally native, indigenous and aboriginal. Hair is subject to random mutation and genetic drift as much as any other trait of the human body.

Why Ignore that those Pacific Islanders are all variations of Africoid people who simply migrated and settled in those parts of the World thousands of years ago? Those melaninated Africoid Southern-Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders actually say that they migrated from Africa.

The fact that not only are those Asians phenotypically identical to Africans, but they also carry African blood types as indicated by the spread of maria - maria resistance (sickle cell, G6PD etc). This can only be passed down from common ancestry not "adaption". The map below CLEARLY shows that this phenomena is an African one by the distribution. First the distribution of the U.S. matches the distribution of the black population concentrated in the low land south. The situation in Europe is also telling because it is in the areas where we know was very recently (500 years ago) dominated by African Muslims (Moors).

Once again we see Africoid haplotypes for sickle cell distributed from Africa all the way into southeast Asia.


This fact should lay to rest any attempts to say that we are not closely related to the melaninated peoples of Asia. They literally share our unique blood line.

Sickle cell is not DNA. Surely you aren't claiming that the DNA of people in New Guinea is the same as the DNA of people in Africa. These people are descendants of the first people to leave Africa 60,000 years ago. So how are they still African? And which of these people claim they "recently" came from Africa?

The problem you have is that the environment determines phenotype. And Africa itself is not the basis of "blackness", but tropical environments are. Anywhere there are tropical environments you will find people who are tropically adapted. And mosquitos are not unique to Africa either. You also find large numbers of mosquitos anywhere that is hot and moist, ie. a tropical environment. Therefore, you are making a false equivalency. Having sickle cell traits does not equate to recent African ancestry. Because it could simply be an adaptation to local environmental conditions as opposed to some 'recent' migrations from Africa. Note that all these populations inhabit the same latitude as central Africa around the equator, which is the primary location of tropical environments on the planet. Therefore, it is an environment issue, not Africa that is causing the similarities in phenotype and blood type.

It has been shown numerous times that the DNA of Pacific Islanders, Andaman Islanders, Australian Aborigines and Papua New Guineans is far from Africans, even though they look similar by phenotype.....

This is false. you have failed to read the literature. you need to do your own research.


 -

.
The research shows Blacks in Africa and the Pacific share DNA.
.

Come on Clyde, these people are not recent migrants from Afrca......

quote:

The population history of Aboriginal Australians remains largely uncharacterized. Here we generate high-coverage
genomes for 83 Aboriginal Australians (speakers of Pama–Nyungan languages) and 25 Papuans from the New Guinea
Highlands. We find that Papuan and Aboriginal Australian ancestors diversified 25–40 thousand years ago (kya), suggesting
pre-Holocene population structure in the ancient continent of Sahul (Australia, New Guinea and Tasmania). However,
all of the studied Aboriginal Australians descend from a single founding population that differentiated ~10–32 kya.
We infer a population expansion in northeast Australia during the Holocene epoch (past 10,000 years) associated with
limited gene flow from this region to the rest of Australia, consistent with the spread of the Pama–Nyungan languages.
We estimate that Aboriginal Australians and Papuans diverged from Eurasians 51–72 kya, following a single out-of-Africa
dispersal, and subsequently admixed with archaic populations. Finally, we report evidence of selection in Aboriginal
Australians potentially associated with living in the desert

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308391208_A_genomic_history_of_Aboriginal_Australia
You keep talking about the Australians, I am talking about the Melanesians. These are two different populations. It is the Melanesian who came recently into the Pacific .

Stop talking about things you have no knowledge of. Its alright to have an opinion--but at least do some background reading before you accept Eurocentric research as the final statement about the relationship between Black people.

You just don't get it. For the past 200 years researchers admitted that the Africans, Dravidians, Melanesians, and Australians were all negroes. Now the genetics research shows that the haplogroups of Eurasia are founded on haplogroup L3(M.N), that had to have originated and expanded across Africa, before the Australian exit from Africa into Asia 60kya. This is why the Australians took L3(M,N) to Asia, after it originated in Africa.

Many researchers fail to recognize that there is a craniometric difference between Australoids /Australians representatives of the OOA population, Mongoloids and Melanoids; craniometric differences that indicate two migrations of the Black Variety into the Pacific and East Asia.
.

 -


.
Tsuenehiko Hanihare discussed the phenotypic variations between these populations(1). Tsuenehiko classified these people into three major populations Southeast Asian Mongoloids (Polynesians), the Australians or Austroloid type and the Nicobar and Andaman (Melanoid) samples which he found lie between the predominately Southeast Asian and Australoid/Australian type (1).


The Australian aborigines and Melanesians show cranonical variates and represent two distinct Black populations(2).[/] The Australoids or Australians live mainly in Australia and the highland regions of Oceania, the Melanoid people on the otherhand live in the coastal regions of Near Oceania and Fiji. D.J de Laubenfels discussed the variety of Blacks found in Asia.[b] Laubenfiels explained that Negroids/Melanoids such as the Tasmanians are characterized by wooly black hair and sparse body hair (2). Australoids or Australians on the otherhand have curly, wavy or straight hair and abundant body hair. Other differences between these Black populations include Negroid / Melanoid brows being vertical and without eyebrow ridges, whereas Australoid brows are sloping and with prominent ridges (2).


.



.
This led M. Pietrusewky to recognize two separate colonizations of the Pacific by morphologically distinct populations one Polynesian and the other Melanesian (3). Pietrusewky’s research indicates a clear separation between the Australian-Melanesian crania and the Polynesian crania (3). The findings indicate an origin for the Polynesians in Southeast Asia (3-5), and an early Australo-Melanesian presence in East Asia as discussed in the earlier comment.


Laubenfels argues that the Australians are remnants of the original African migration to the region 60kya (2). This view is supported by David Bulbeck who found that the Australian craniometrics are different from the Mongoloid (Polynesian), and Melanoid crania metrics (4). This research indicates that whereas Australian aborigine crania agree with the archaic population of Asia and first group of Africans to exit Africa, they fail to correspond to the Sahulland crania which are distinctly of Southwest Pacific or Melanoid affinity (2,4). This suggests that by the rise of Sahulland there were two distinct Black populations in Asia one Austroloid and the other Melanoid (4).


The Melanesian type does not appear in East Asia (Siberia) until after 5000 BC. This is thousands of years after Luizia and Eva Neharon had existed in Brazil and Mexico respectively.

By the Neolithic the Melanoids or Papuans are associated with millet cultivation at Yangshao and Lougshan according to Pietrusewky’s work (5). Tsang argues that the probable homeland of the Austronesian speakers was the Pearl River delta, here the Melanoid people cultivated millet (6). Sagart believes that there is a Proto-Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian family of languages based on the millet culture the Melanoids introduced to China (7).

The craniometrics make it clear the Australians are not related to the Melanesians. Stop spreading lies about Melanesians and Africans not being related



Reference:

1. Tsunehiko Hanihare, Interpretation of craniofacial variations and diversification of East and Southeast Asia. In Bioarchaeology of Southeast Asia. (Eds.) Marc Oxenhan and Nancy Tayles (pp.91-111). Cambridge, 2005.

2. D.J. Laubenfels, Australoids, Negroids and Negroes: A suggested explanation for their distinct distributions. Annals Association of Am. Geographers, 58(1), 1968: 42-50.

3. Michael Pietrusewky, A multivariate craniometric study of the prehistoric and modern inhabitants of Southeast Asia, East Asia and surrounding regions:A human kaleidoscope. Cambridge Studies in Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology, No. 43, 2006: 59-90.

4. David Bulbeck, Australian Aboriginal craniometrics as construed through FORDISC, 2005. Retrieved: 4/2/2008: http://arts.anu.edu.au/bullda/oz_craniometrics.html

5. M. Pietrusewsky, The Physical anthropology of the Pacific, East Asia: A multivariate craniometric analysis. . In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology,Linguistics and Genetics (pp.201-229). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.

6. Tsang Cheng-Hwa, Recent discoveries at Tapenkeng culture sites in Taiwan;Implications for the problem of Austronesian origins. In The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics ,(Eds) L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (pp.63-74). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.

7. L. Sagart, Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian an Updated and improved argument. In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics (pp.161-176). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.

Clyde you haven't shown that Melanesians are recent African migrants. Verbal legends are not the same as actual DNA. Melanesian DNA is not closely related to Africans.

The Main DNA haplogroups of the Pacific are M and N lineages along with some Q lineages, plus some B lineages.
M haplogroups in Melanesia:

Again, your claims should be backed up by evidence across the board. I have no doubt that there have been more recent migrations to parts of South Asia after the original OOA migrations, but those migrations were tiny and did not change the overwhelming majority of the populations already in place from the original OOA event. And those populations are black and have similar features to Africans because they live in tropical environments similar to most black Africans, who are also tropically adapted.

You are basically arguing that somehow tropical adaptation is something unique to Africa when it is not. It is an environmental adaptation and not an "African" adaptation.

And on the point of Aboriginal migrations to the Americas from Asia, there are many scholars who are beginning to acknowledge this.

quote:

A stunning discovery by US and Brazilian geneticists has provided definitive evidence for a controversial theory that the Siberian ancestors of modern Native Americans were not the first people to colonise the Americas.

A team of US and Brazilian geneticists, led by Dr David Reich, of Harvard Medical School’s Department of Genetics, has shown that members of the Surui, Karitiana and Xavante peoples of Brazil’s Amazonia region, carry distinctive DNA sequences that identify them as the descendants of an earlier wave of colonists known as the Australoids.

These people, said to have left Africa 50,000 years ago, are related to Australia’s Aborigines, the Onge people of India’s Andaman Islands, and Papua New Guineans.

Dr Reich and his colleagues have also identified Australoid genetic motifs in the indigenous Mixe people of the eastern Highlands of Mexico’s Oaxaca state.

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2015/07/22/discovery-change-view-human-history/
The Mixe are also related to Africans. Haplogroup A found among Mixe and Mixtecs .The Mande speakers carry mtDNA haplogroup A, and is also a substratum language of Mixe.

You can't read. I never said the Australian Aborigines, the Onge people of India’s Andaman Islands, and upland Papua New Guineans were recent migrants from Africa.

The recent migrants to the Pacific are the Melanesians and coastal Papua New Guineans. The Melanesians spread ffrom Southeast Asia and East Asia during the Lapita period. That is why the language they speak is related to African languages just like the placenames.

You said I have not presented any evidence of the African origin of the Melanesians--but I have. Here is the evidence.


First, the Fijians claim they came from Africa. We know a megalithic culture expanded from Africa into the Indian/Pacific Ocean areas after 2000 BC. This is why we find pyramids in Melanesia, but not Australia.


 -

Tonga step pyramid

 -

Pyramid of Mauritius


Secondly, African place names are found in the Pacific and correspondences between lexical items.


  • Common Terms:

    English Manding Melanesian Polynesian

    arrow bye,bya fana,pane fana,pana

    Father baba babi papa

    Man tye ta taga-ta

    head ku tequ-qa tuku-noa

    pot daga taga taga

    vase bara pora,bora bora-bora

    fish yege ige, ika ika

    ox, cattle konga,gunga kede kuda



The ancient Austronesians cultivated rice, millet, yams and sugarcane. (Bellwood 1990, p.92)

It would appear that the Polynesians learned agriculture from the Manding as illustrated below:

  • Polynesian English Manding

    *talun fallow, land daa

    *tanem to plant, sow daa

    *suluq torch, jet of flame suu

    *kuDen cooking pot,bowl ku

This evidence provides linguistic and anthropological support for the Fiji tradition. It is wrong that you guys deny a people history just because your European masters to do not present evidence in support of a native tradition.

If you keep waiting for Europeans to verify our history you will have a long wait.


Recently Williams John Page (1988) discussed the Lakato Hypothesis. The Lakato Hypothesis stated simply implies that the Melanesian people of Fiji were carried to the Pacific Islands by Indonesian maritime merchants after they had colonized parts of East and central Africa. In these Indonesian centers, Page (1988) believes that the Africans "gravitated into the Indonesian inspired trade". Page (1988) wrote that :
code:
"It is further suggested that the Lakato colonies in
Africa were the principal contributors to the earliest
settlements of Malagasy and responsible for the traces
of Indonesian influence in Africa which have endured into
modern times, as identified by previous investigators".

To support this hypothesis Page (1988) presents place names that are made up of African ethnic names (AEN) as roots for Fijian placenames. These toponyms include a multitude of hills, streams and villages composed of a simple AEN root plus a Fijian placenames e.g.,koro, wai-ni-, vatu and na-. Page (1988, p.34) found 270 AEN's forming part of Fijian place names (FPN). The interesting fact about the AEN and FPN cognates is that they are found in West Africa and not East Africa. (Page 1988, p.47)

This fact negates Page's (1988) hypothesis because there are no rivers in Africa that link East Africa and West Africa. This suggest that Africans who later settled West Africa must have been in the Pacific long before the Austronesians arrived on Madagascar. This view is supported by the fact that the classical mongoloid people did not arrive in the Pacific area until after 500 B.C.

Page (1988,p.66) believes that the AEN-FPN cognates are the result of the establishment of Indonesian colonies first along the Zambia river and from there into Central and Western Africa between the fourth and eleventh centuries A.D. During this period Bantu speakers are believed to have been incorporated into the Indonesian Lakota culture and between the eleventh to sixteenth A.D. settled in Melanesia by Lakota fleets. (Page 1988, p.66) Although Page's (1988,p.67) theory is interesting the fact that the AENs that are FPN's are prefixed to a multitude of hills, streams and villages" indicate that these place names are very old because the names for hills and streams are rarely changed.

Page (1988, p.67) noted four common prefixes used in the FPN's: Koro 'village,hill', wai-ni- 'water of'; vatu- 'stone'; and na- 'the'. These terms are closely related to Manding terms as illustrated below:
code:
FPN English Manding
koro hill kuru
koro village so-koro
wai-ni water of ba-ni 'course
of water'
vatu stone bete
na the ni

As illustrated above the AENs and Manding terms are analogous for 'hill', 'the' and 'of'. It would appear that the FPN /w/ corresponds to Manding /b/. Due to the thousands of miles separating the Manding and AENs, this cognate can be explained as loan words. Given the full agreement of these terms suggest a genetic relationship between AENs and Manding and descent from Paleo-African.

In addition to AENs serving as FPNs we find many toponyms in Oceania that corresponds to West African place names. Below we see 36 place names from Oceania and WestAfrica that share full correspondence. Manding ,Polynesian and Melanesian share many terms for kinship, dwellings, topographical features, dwellings and utensils.


  • WEST AFRICA OCEANIA
    Alamand Alamanda
    Alika Alika
    Alika Arika
    Babonga Babonga
    Bagola Bagola
    Batori Batori
    Bakaka Bakaka
    Bambula Bambula
    Buduri Buduri
    Burbura Burbura
    Gambia Gambia
    Kalobi Kalobi
    Kalonda Kalonda
    Kalonga Kalonga
    Kamalo Kamalo
    Kambia Kambia
    Kamori Kamori
    Kantara Kantara
    Karako Karako
    Kayata Kayata
    Kukula Kukula
    Magari Magari
    Magura Maguri
    Makara Makara
    Marosi Maros
    Oronga Oronga
    Palanka Palanka
    Parapara Parapara
    Sio Sio
    Sumbura Sumbura
    Tamana Tamana
    Taraba Taraba
    Taramal Taramal
    Teleki Teleki
    Totoki Totoki
    Varong Varong


See full article: http://olmec98.net/pac1.htm


In fact, they also share common placenames. Shared place names in Melanesia suggest that the Melanesians recently came to the Pacific from Africa, as claimed by the Fijians.

 -


The Melanesians probably belonged to the Niger-Congo and Dravidian speaking communities that formerly lived in the Sahara-Sahel region until 5-6kya. The Melanesians formerly lived in Africa and/or South China/Southeast Asia before they sailed to the Pacific Islans, probably as part of the Lapita migrations.

In figure 3 we see cognate Mande and Melanesian terms for vase, pot, arrow, cattle/ox, and fish. They also shared agricultural terms as well

  • Polynesian English Manding
    *talun fallow, land daa
    *tanem to plant daa
    *suluq torch, flame suu
    *kuDen cooking pot,bowl ku



 -

As you can see the Melanesians and Africans are not only negroid they also share genes, placenames and culture terms. You can not dispute the fact that Melanesians carry African genes as I posted originally, in addition to the genes you posted. You have not provided any evidence disputing any of this evidence.

 -

If the Melanesians did not come from Africa why do they share the same haplogroups, placenames and key terms with Africans and look like Africans instead of Australians ?

Posts: 11933 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Akachi:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

What do Native Americans Called African AMericans look like???

What do Native Americans called Afro Brazilians look like???

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

All three Groups look African. They don't look Asian Black, They look African Black.

Clyde is right and yall keep trying to claim the mongoloids as the only Native Americans, when African americans are Black Native Americans.

Stop trying to win debates, and actually LISTEN to each other..

Good Job Clyde

You are right. I am thinking the DNA of these folks would be the same if what you are saying is true.

"Pure" indigenous Native Americans will have the same DNA as Africans in America.

But they don't.

Your argument is based purely on conjecture not hard facts. Curly hair is not unique to Africa. Millions of black folks in the Pacific have curly hair and are not Africans. And these same people are right next to other populations of black folks in the Pacific with straight hair. Both are equally native, indigenous and aboriginal. Hair is subject to random mutation and genetic drift as much as any other trait of the human body.

Why Ignore that those Pacific Islanders are all variations of Africoid people who simply migrated and settled in those parts of the World thousands of years ago? Those melaninated Africoid Southern-Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders actually say that they migrated from Africa.

The fact that not only are those Asians phenotypically identical to Africans, but they also carry African blood types as indicated by the spread of maria - maria resistance (sickle cell, G6PD etc). This can only be passed down from common ancestry not "adaption". The map below CLEARLY shows that this phenomena is an African one by the distribution. First the distribution of the U.S. matches the distribution of the black population concentrated in the low land south. The situation in Europe is also telling because it is in the areas where we know was very recently (500 years ago) dominated by African Muslims (Moors).

Once again we see Africoid haplotypes for sickle cell distributed from Africa all the way into southeast Asia.


This fact should lay to rest any attempts to say that we are not closely related to the melaninated peoples of Asia. They literally share our unique blood line.

Sickle cell is not DNA. Surely you aren't claiming that the DNA of people in New Guinea is the same as the DNA of people in Africa. These people are descendants of the first people to leave Africa 60,000 years ago. So how are they still African? And which of these people claim they "recently" came from Africa?

The problem you have is that the environment determines phenotype. And Africa itself is not the basis of "blackness", but tropical environments are. Anywhere there are tropical environments you will find people who are tropically adapted. And mosquitos are not unique to Africa either. You also find large numbers of mosquitos anywhere that is hot and moist, ie. a tropical environment. Therefore, you are making a false equivalency. Having sickle cell traits does not equate to recent African ancestry. Because it could simply be an adaptation to local environmental conditions as opposed to some 'recent' migrations from Africa. Note that all these populations inhabit the same latitude as central Africa around the equator, which is the primary location of tropical environments on the planet. Therefore, it is an environment issue, not Africa that is causing the similarities in phenotype and blood type.

It has been shown numerous times that the DNA of Pacific Islanders, Andaman Islanders, Australian Aborigines and Papua New Guineans is far from Africans, even though they look similar by phenotype.....

This is false. you have failed to read the literature. you need to do your own research.


 -

.
The research shows Blacks in Africa and the Pacific share DNA.
.

Come on Clyde, these people are not recent migrants from Afrca......

quote:

The population history of Aboriginal Australians remains largely uncharacterized. Here we generate high-coverage
genomes for 83 Aboriginal Australians (speakers of Pama–Nyungan languages) and 25 Papuans from the New Guinea
Highlands. We find that Papuan and Aboriginal Australian ancestors diversified 25–40 thousand years ago (kya), suggesting
pre-Holocene population structure in the ancient continent of Sahul (Australia, New Guinea and Tasmania). However,
all of the studied Aboriginal Australians descend from a single founding population that differentiated ~10–32 kya.
We infer a population expansion in northeast Australia during the Holocene epoch (past 10,000 years) associated with
limited gene flow from this region to the rest of Australia, consistent with the spread of the Pama–Nyungan languages.
We estimate that Aboriginal Australians and Papuans diverged from Eurasians 51–72 kya, following a single out-of-Africa
dispersal, and subsequently admixed with archaic populations. Finally, we report evidence of selection in Aboriginal
Australians potentially associated with living in the desert

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308391208_A_genomic_history_of_Aboriginal_Australia
You keep talking about the Australians, I am talking about the Melanesians. These are two different populations. It is the Melanesian who came recently into the Pacific .

Stop talking about things you have no knowledge of. Its alright to have an opinion--but at least do some background reading before you accept Eurocentric research as the final statement about the relationship between Black people.

You just don't get it. For the past 200 years researchers admitted that the Africans, Dravidians, Melanesians, and Australians were all negroes. Now the genetics research shows that the haplogroups of Eurasia are founded on haplogroup L3(M.N), that had to have originated and expanded across Africa, before the Australian exit from Africa into Asia 60kya. This is why the Australians took L3(M,N) to Asia, after it originated in Africa.

Many researchers fail to recognize that there is a craniometric difference between Australoids /Australians representatives of the OOA population, Mongoloids and Melanoids; craniometric differences that indicate two migrations of the Black Variety into the Pacific and East Asia.
.

 -


.
Tsuenehiko Hanihare discussed the phenotypic variations between these populations(1). Tsuenehiko classified these people into three major populations Southeast Asian Mongoloids (Polynesians), the Australians or Austroloid type and the Nicobar and Andaman (Melanoid) samples which he found lie between the predominately Southeast Asian and Australoid/Australian type (1).


The Australian aborigines and Melanesians show cranonical variates and represent two distinct Black populations(2).[/] The Australoids or Australians live mainly in Australia and the highland regions of Oceania, the Melanoid people on the otherhand live in the coastal regions of Near Oceania and Fiji. D.J de Laubenfels discussed the variety of Blacks found in Asia.[b] Laubenfiels explained that Negroids/Melanoids such as the Tasmanians are characterized by wooly black hair and sparse body hair (2). Australoids or Australians on the otherhand have curly, wavy or straight hair and abundant body hair. Other differences between these Black populations include Negroid / Melanoid brows being vertical and without eyebrow ridges, whereas Australoid brows are sloping and with prominent ridges (2).


.



.
This led M. Pietrusewky to recognize two separate colonizations of the Pacific by morphologically distinct populations one Polynesian and the other Melanesian (3). Pietrusewky’s research indicates a clear separation between the Australian-Melanesian crania and the Polynesian crania (3). The findings indicate an origin for the Polynesians in Southeast Asia (3-5), and an early Australo-Melanesian presence in East Asia as discussed in the earlier comment.


Laubenfels argues that the Australians are remnants of the original African migration to the region 60kya (2). This view is supported by David Bulbeck who found that the Australian craniometrics are different from the Mongoloid (Polynesian), and Melanoid crania metrics (4). This research indicates that whereas Australian aborigine crania agree with the archaic population of Asia and first group of Africans to exit Africa, they fail to correspond to the Sahulland crania which are distinctly of Southwest Pacific or Melanoid affinity (2,4). This suggests that by the rise of Sahulland there were two distinct Black populations in Asia one Austroloid and the other Melanoid (4).


The Melanesian type does not appear in East Asia (Siberia) until after 5000 BC. This is thousands of years after Luizia and Eva Neharon had existed in Brazil and Mexico respectively.

By the Neolithic the Melanoids or Papuans are associated with millet cultivation at Yangshao and Lougshan according to Pietrusewky’s work (5). Tsang argues that the probable homeland of the Austronesian speakers was the Pearl River delta, here the Melanoid people cultivated millet (6). Sagart believes that there is a Proto-Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian family of languages based on the millet culture the Melanoids introduced to China (7).

The craniometrics make it clear the Australians are not related to the Melanesians. Stop spreading lies about Melanesians and Africans not being related



Reference:

1. Tsunehiko Hanihare, Interpretation of craniofacial variations and diversification of East and Southeast Asia. In Bioarchaeology of Southeast Asia. (Eds.) Marc Oxenhan and Nancy Tayles (pp.91-111). Cambridge, 2005.

2. D.J. Laubenfels, Australoids, Negroids and Negroes: A suggested explanation for their distinct distributions. Annals Association of Am. Geographers, 58(1), 1968: 42-50.

3. Michael Pietrusewky, A multivariate craniometric study of the prehistoric and modern inhabitants of Southeast Asia, East Asia and surrounding regions:A human kaleidoscope. Cambridge Studies in Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology, No. 43, 2006: 59-90.

4. David Bulbeck, Australian Aboriginal craniometrics as construed through FORDISC, 2005. Retrieved: 4/2/2008: http://arts.anu.edu.au/bullda/oz_craniometrics.html

5. M. Pietrusewsky, The Physical anthropology of the Pacific, East Asia: A multivariate craniometric analysis. . In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology,Linguistics and Genetics (pp.201-229). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.

6. Tsang Cheng-Hwa, Recent discoveries at Tapenkeng culture sites in Taiwan;Implications for the problem of Austronesian origins. In The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics ,(Eds) L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (pp.63-74). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.

7. L. Sagart, Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian an Updated and improved argument. In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics (pp.161-176). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.

Clyde you haven't shown that Melanesians are recent African migrants. Verbal legends are not the same as actual DNA. Melanesian DNA is not closely related to Africans.

The Main DNA haplogroups of the Pacific are M and N lineages along with some Q lineages, plus some B lineages.
M haplogroups in Melanesia:

Again, your claims should be backed up by evidence across the board. I have no doubt that there have been more recent migrations to parts of South Asia after the original OOA migrations, but those migrations were tiny and did not change the overwhelming majority of the populations already in place from the original OOA event. And those populations are black and have similar features to Africans because they live in tropical environments similar to most black Africans, who are also tropically adapted.

You are basically arguing that somehow tropical adaptation is something unique to Africa when it is not. It is an environmental adaptation and not an "African" adaptation.

And on the point of Aboriginal migrations to the Americas from Asia, there are many scholars who are beginning to acknowledge this.

quote:

A stunning discovery by US and Brazilian geneticists has provided definitive evidence for a controversial theory that the Siberian ancestors of modern Native Americans were not the first people to colonise the Americas.

A team of US and Brazilian geneticists, led by Dr David Reich, of Harvard Medical School’s Department of Genetics, has shown that members of the Surui, Karitiana and Xavante peoples of Brazil’s Amazonia region, carry distinctive DNA sequences that identify them as the descendants of an earlier wave of colonists known as the Australoids.

These people, said to have left Africa 50,000 years ago, are related to Australia’s Aborigines, the Onge people of India’s Andaman Islands, and Papua New Guineans.

Dr Reich and his colleagues have also identified Australoid genetic motifs in the indigenous Mixe people of the eastern Highlands of Mexico’s Oaxaca state.

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2015/07/22/discovery-change-view-human-history/
The Mixe are also related to Africans. Haplogroup A found among Mixe and Mixtecs .The Mande speakers carry mtDNA haplogroup A, and is also a substratum language of Mixe.

You can't read. I never said the Australian Aborigines, the Onge people of India’s Andaman Islands, and upland Papua New Guineans were recent migrants from Africa.

The recent migrants to the Pacific are the Melanesians and coastal Papua New Guineans. The Melanesians spread ffrom Southeast Asia and East Asia during the Lapita period. That is why the language they speak is related to African languages just like the placenames.

You said I have not presented any evidence of the African origin of the Melanesians--but I have. Here is the evidence.


First, the Fijians claim they came from Africa. We know a megalithic culture expanded from Africa into the Indian/Pacific Ocean areas after 2000 BC. This is why we find pyramids in Melanesia, but not Australia.


 -

Tonga step pyramid

 -

Pyramid of Mauritius


Secondly, African place names are found in the Pacific and correspondences between lexical items.


  • Common Terms:

    English Manding Melanesian Polynesian

    arrow bye,bya fana,pane fana,pana

    Father baba babi papa

    Man tye ta taga-ta

    head ku tequ-qa tuku-noa

    pot daga taga taga

    vase bara pora,bora bora-bora

    fish yege ige, ika ika

    ox, cattle konga,gunga kede kuda



The ancient Austronesians cultivated rice, millet, yams and sugarcane. (Bellwood 1990, p.92)

It would appear that the Polynesians learned agriculture from the Manding as illustrated below:

  • Polynesian English Manding

    *talun fallow, land daa

    *tanem to plant, sow daa

    *suluq torch, jet of flame suu

    *kuDen cooking pot,bowl ku

This evidence provides linguistic and anthropological support for the Fiji tradition. It is wrong that you guys deny a people history just because your European masters to do not present evidence in support of a native tradition.

If you keep waiting for Europeans to verify our history you will have a long wait.


Recently Williams John Page (1988) discussed the Lakato Hypothesis. The Lakato Hypothesis stated simply implies that the Melanesian people of Fiji were carried to the Pacific Islands by Indonesian maritime merchants after they had colonized parts of East and central Africa. In these Indonesian centers, Page (1988) believes that the Africans "gravitated into the Indonesian inspired trade". Page (1988) wrote that :
code:
"It is further suggested that the Lakato colonies in
Africa were the principal contributors to the earliest
settlements of Malagasy and responsible for the traces
of Indonesian influence in Africa which have endured into
modern times, as identified by previous investigators".

To support this hypothesis Page (1988) presents place names that are made up of African ethnic names (AEN) as roots for Fijian placenames. These toponyms include a multitude of hills, streams and villages composed of a simple AEN root plus a Fijian placenames e.g.,koro, wai-ni-, vatu and na-. Page (1988, p.34) found 270 AEN's forming part of Fijian place names (FPN). The interesting fact about the AEN and FPN cognates is that they are found in West Africa and not East Africa. (Page 1988, p.47)

This fact negates Page's (1988) hypothesis because there are no rivers in Africa that link East Africa and West Africa. This suggest that Africans who later settled West Africa must have been in the Pacific long before the Austronesians arrived on Madagascar. This view is supported by the fact that the classical mongoloid people did not arrive in the Pacific area until after 500 B.C.

Page (1988,p.66) believes that the AEN-FPN cognates are the result of the establishment of Indonesian colonies first along the Zambia river and from there into Central and Western Africa between the fourth and eleventh centuries A.D. During this period Bantu speakers are believed to have been incorporated into the Indonesian Lakota culture and between the eleventh to sixteenth A.D. settled in Melanesia by Lakota fleets. (Page 1988, p.66) Although Page's (1988,p.67) theory is interesting the fact that the AENs that are FPN's are prefixed to a multitude of hills, streams and villages" indicate that these place names are very old because the names for hills and streams are rarely changed.

Page (1988, p.67) noted four common prefixes used in the FPN's: Koro 'village,hill', wai-ni- 'water of'; vatu- 'stone'; and na- 'the'. These terms are closely related to Manding terms as illustrated below:
code:
FPN English Manding
koro hill kuru
koro village so-koro
wai-ni water of ba-ni 'course
of water'
vatu stone bete
na the ni

As illustrated above the AENs and Manding terms are analogous for 'hill', 'the' and 'of'. It would appear that the FPN /w/ corresponds to Manding /b/. Due to the thousands of miles separating the Manding and AENs, this cognate can be explained as loan words. Given the full agreement of these terms suggest a genetic relationship between AENs and Manding and descent from Paleo-African.

In addition to AENs serving as FPNs we find many toponyms in Oceania that corresponds to West African place names. Below we see 36 place names from Oceania and WestAfrica that share full correspondence. Manding ,Polynesian and Melanesian share many terms for kinship, dwellings, topographical features, dwellings and utensils.


  • WEST AFRICA OCEANIA
    Alamand Alamanda
    Alika Alika
    Alika Arika
    Babonga Babonga
    Bagola Bagola
    Batori Batori
    Bakaka Bakaka
    Bambula Bambula
    Buduri Buduri
    Burbura Burbura
    Gambia Gambia
    Kalobi Kalobi
    Kalonda Kalonda
    Kalonga Kalonga
    Kamalo Kamalo
    Kambia Kambia
    Kamori Kamori
    Kantara Kantara
    Karako Karako
    Kayata Kayata
    Kukula Kukula
    Magari Magari
    Magura Maguri
    Makara Makara
    Marosi Maros
    Oronga Oronga
    Palanka Palanka
    Parapara Parapara
    Sio Sio
    Sumbura Sumbura
    Tamana Tamana
    Taraba Taraba
    Taramal Taramal
    Teleki Teleki
    Totoki Totoki
    Varong Varong


See full article: http://olmec98.net/pac1.htm


In fact, they also share common placenames. Shared place names in Melanesia suggest that the Melanesians recently came to the Pacific from Africa, as claimed by the Fijians.

 -


The Melanesians probably belonged to the Niger-Congo and Dravidian speaking communities that formerly lived in the Sahara-Sahel region until 5-6kya. The Melanesians formerly lived in Africa and/or South China/Southeast Asia before they sailed to the Pacific Islans, probably as part of the Lapita migrations.

In figure 3 we see cognate Mande and Melanesian terms for vase, pot, arrow, cattle/ox, and fish. They also shared agricultural terms as well

  • Polynesian English Manding
    *talun fallow, land daa
    *tanem to plant daa
    *suluq torch, flame suu
    *kuDen cooking pot,bowl ku



 -

As you can see the Melanesians and Africans are not only negroid they also share genes, placenames and culture terms. You can not dispute the fact that Melanesians carry African genes as I posted originally, in addition to the genes you posted. You have not provided any evidence disputing any of this evidence.

 -

If the Melanesians did not come from Africa why do they share the same haplogroups, placenames and key terms with Africans and look like Africans instead of Australians ?

Clyde I only pointed out the facts that the DNA present. You seem to believe that your word similarities trump DNA. I don't. Almost all scientists say that Melanasians derive from mainland aboriginal populations in South East Asia 10,000 years ago. And this is based on DNA.

You are claiming these people just got there recently because of words. In order for your theory to prove true all the data should reinforce your argument and it doesn't.

Not to mention which Africans look like this:
 -
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/05/origin-blond-afros-melanesia

Posts: 7063 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Clyde I only pointed out the facts that the DNA present. You seem to believe that your word similarities trump DNA. I don't. Almost all scientists say that Melanasians derive from mainland aboriginal populations in South East Asia 10,000 years ago. And this is based on DNA.

You are claiming these people just got there recently because of words. In order for your theory to prove true all the data should reinforce your argument and it doesn't.

Not to mention which Africans look like this:
 -
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/05/origin-blond-afros-melanesia

I have also presented DNA evidence linking Melenesians and Africans.

 -

This DNA evidence disputes your DNA evidence. Yet you have given no evidence disputing the archaeological, linguistic and anthropological evidence supporting an African origin of the Melanesians just as their oral traditions claim.

You just don't get it. I have presented evidence supporting the African origin of the Melanesians. I explained how the archaeology support a Lapita origin of this population.

This picture does not dispute anything. It only shows a unique physiological characteristic of Melanesians.

Where is your evidence disputing my research, you have not presented anything to dispute my proposition. Absence of any cited research by you Doug disputing my research indicates that you are just talking out of the side of your neck.

Posts: 11933 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Clyde I only pointed out the facts that the DNA present. You seem to believe that your word similarities trump DNA. I don't. Almost all scientists say that Melanasians derive from mainland aboriginal populations in South East Asia 10,000 years ago. And this is based on DNA.

You are claiming these people just got there recently because of words. In order for your theory to prove true all the data should reinforce your argument and it doesn't.

Not to mention which Africans look like this:
 -
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/05/origin-blond-afros-melanesia

I have also presented DNA evidence linking Melenesians and Africans.

 -

This DNA evidence disputes your DNA evidence. Yet you have given no evidence disputing the archaeological, linguistic and anthropological evidence supporting an African origin of the Melanesians just as their oral traditions claim.

You just don't get it. I have presented evidence supporting the African origin of the Melanesians. I explained how the archaeology support a Lapita origin of this population.

This picture does not dispute anything. It only shows a unique physiological characteristic of Melanesians.

Where is your evidence disputing my research, you have not presented anything to dispute my proposition. Absence of any cited research by you Doug disputing my research indicates that you are just talking out of the side of your neck.

Clyde I presented multiple citations showing the DNA lineages of the Melanesians. You cite your own non peer reviewed work as proof.

Come on man.

And bottom line what you are saying contradicts everything we know about Out of Africa. If all humans came from Africa then most humans outside Africa are not "recent" African migrants, except in the case of the African slave trade and other specific cases of recent mass migration or voyages. Black folks have been in Asia since the beginning. Yet according to you, these folks only got there recently.

It is blatantly absurd the way you distort logic to cling on phenotype as if that determines who is and isn't African. The People of New Guinea aren't Africans. Neither are the people of Melanesia or Micronesia. Just because they have curly hair and black skin does not make them Africans. That is just a blatant mis-representation of genetics and history.

And to date no actual scholarly journal reproduces your genetics data. None. The only place I see E-M35 is in your articles on the net and nowhere else.

If what you were saying was true it should be reinforced by other scholarly studies of Melanesian DNA. But it isn't. So I am saying that you don't have enough facts to back up what you are saying. Citing your own work doesn't prove anything. I cant even find any articles by "Cordeaux et al".

Posts: 7063 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Moderator
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
I cant even find any articles by "Cordeaux et al". [/QB]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180321/


Am J Hum Genet. 2003 Jun; 72(6): 1586–1590.
doi: 10.1086/375407
PMCID: PMC1180321

South Asia, the Andamanese, and the Genetic Evidence for an “Early” Human Dispersal out of Africa

Richard Cordaux and Mark Stoneking


________________________________________

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v11/n3/full/5200949a.html


European Journal of Human Genetics (2003) 11, 253–264. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5200949

Mitochondrial DNA analysis reveals diverse histories of tribal populations from India

Richard Cordaux1, Nilmani Saha2, Gillian R Bentley3, Robert Aunger4, S M Sirajuddin5 and Mark Stoneking


_____________________________________________


http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009528

Carriers of human mitochondrial DNA macrohaplogroup M colonized India from southeastern Asia

Patricia Marrero, Khaled K Abu-Amero, Jose M Larruga, Vicente M Cabrera
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/047456

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objetives We suggest that the phylogeny and phylogeography of mtDNA macrohaplogroup M in Eurasia and Australasia is better explained supposing an out of Africa of modern humans following a northern route across the Levant than the most prevalent southern coastal route across Arabia and India proposed by others. Methods A total 206 Saudi samples belonging to macrohaplogroup M have been analyzed. In addition, 4107 published complete or nearly complete Eurasian and Australasian mtDNA genomes ascribed to the same macrohaplogroup have been included in a global phylogeographic analysis. Results Macrohaplogroup M has only historical implantation in West Eurasia including the Arabian Peninsula. Founder ages of M lineages in India are significantly younger than those in East Asia, Southeast Asia and Near Oceania. These results point to a colonization of the Indian subcontinent by modern humans carrying M lineages from the east instead the west side. Conclusions The existence of a northern route previously advanced by the phylogeography of mtDNA macrohaplogroup N is confirmed here by that of macrohaplogroup M. Taking this genetic evidence and those reported by other disciplines we have constructed a new and more conciliatory model to explain the history of modern humans out of Africa.


Results Macrohaplogroup M has only historical implantation in West Eurasia including the Arabian Peninsula. Founder ages of M lineages in India are significantly younger than those in East Asia, Southeast Asia and Near Oceania. These results point to a colonization of the Indian subcontinent by modern humans carrying M lineages from the east instead the west side.


he unexpected detection of M lineages in Late Pleistocene European hunter-gatherers (Posth et al. 2016), possibly mirrors the back migration into Africa of haplogroup M1 that most probably arrived to Northern Africa through western Eurasia, in Paleolithic times (Olivieri et al., 2006; González et al., 2007; Pennarun et al., 2012). The founder age of M in India is younger than in eastern Asia and Near Oceania and so, southern Asia might better be perceived as a receiver more than an emissary of M lineages. In this study, we built a more conciliatory model for the history of Homo sapiens in Eurasia that might attract the reluctant East Asian position on the premises of only an early exit from Africa and only a sole northern route across the Levant, followed by early modern humans to colonize the Old World.


About the origin of the North African haplogroup M1

The existence of haplogroup M lineages in Africa was first detected in Ethiopian populations by RFLP analysis (Passarino et al., 1998). Although an Asian influence was contemplated to explain the presence of this M component on the maternal Ethiopian pool, the dearth of M lineages in the Levant and its abundance in south Asia gave strength to the hypothesis that haplogroup M1 in Ethiopia was a genetic indicator of the southern route out of Africa. In addition, it was pointed out that probably this was the only successful early dispersal (Quintana-Murci et al., 1999). However, the limited geographic range and genetic diversity of M in Africa compared to India was used as an argument against this hypothesis (Maca-Meyer et al., 2001; Roychoudhury et al., 2001; Metspalu et al., 2004; Olivieri et al., 2006; Thangaraj et al., 2006; González et al., 2007), instead proposing M1 as a signal of backflow to Africa, most probably from the Indian subcontinent. However, after extensive phylogenetic and phylogeographic analyses for this marker (Metspalu et al., 2004; Olivieri et al., 2006; Sun et al., 2006; González et al., 2007; Pennarun et al., 2012), this supposed India to Africa connection was not found. The detection in southeast Asia of new lineages
that share with M1 the 14110 substitution (Kong et al., 2011; Peng et al., 2011), gave rise to
12

Posts: 31207 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Clyde I only pointed out the facts that the DNA present. You seem to believe that your word similarities trump DNA. I don't. Almost all scientists say that Melanasians derive from mainland aboriginal populations in South East Asia 10,000 years ago. And this is based on DNA.

You are claiming these people just got there recently because of words. In order for your theory to prove true all the data should reinforce your argument and it doesn't.


http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/05/origin-blond-afros-melanesia

I have also presented DNA evidence linking Melenesians and Africans.

 -

This DNA evidence disputes your DNA evidence. Yet you have given no evidence disputing the archaeological, linguistic and anthropological evidence supporting an African origin of the Melanesians just as their oral traditions claim.

You just don't get it. I have presented evidence supporting the African origin of the Melanesians. I explained how the archaeology support a Lapita origin of this population.

This picture does not dispute anything. It only shows a unique physiological characteristic of Melanesians.

Where is your evidence disputing my research, you have not presented anything to dispute my proposition. Absence of any cited research by you Doug disputing my research indicates that you are just talking out of the side of your neck.

Clyde I presented multiple citations showing the DNA lineages of the Melanesians. You cite your own non peer reviewed work as proof.

Come on man.

And bottom line what you are saying contradicts everything we know about Out of Africa. If all humans came from Africa then most humans outside Africa are not "recent" African migrants, except in the case of the African slave trade and other specific cases of recent mass migration or voyages. Black folks have been in Asia since the beginning. Yet according to you, these folks only got there recently.

It is blatantly absurd the way you distort logic to cling on phenotype as if that determines who is and isn't African. The People of New Guinea aren't Africans. Neither are the people of Melanesia or Micronesia. Just because they have curly hair and black skin does not make them Africans. That is just a blatant mis-representation of genetics and history.

And to date no actual scholarly journal reproduces your genetics data. None. The only place I see E-M35 is in your articles on the net and nowhere else.

If what you were saying was true it should be reinforced by other scholarly studies of Melanesian DNA. But it isn't. So I am saying that you don't have enough facts to back up what you are saying. Citing your own work doesn't prove anything. I cant even find any articles by "Cordeaux et al".

You can't find any article by Cordeaux because you are not a researcher.

Here are the genetic markers which point to a relationship between the Melanesians, Australians and Africans according to Cordaux et al.,Mitochodrial DNA analysis reveals diverse tribal histories of tribal populations from India, Eur. J Hum Genet (2003)11(2):253-264, in figure 2 notes that Clusters X1 and X are found in Africa and the Pacific.
 -


Figure 2: Cordaux

This Figure makes it clear Africans, Australians and Melanesians share haplogroups.

As I said before, you have presented no archaeological, anthropological or linguistic evidence proving Africans and Melanesians are not related.

Stop parroting lies made up by Eurocentrists to separate Blacks in Africa and Melanesia.
.

Posts: 11933 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

The Main DNA haplogroups of the Pacific are M and N lineages along with some Q lineages, plus some B lineages. Those are not "African" lineages:
 -

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0052022

M haplogroups in Melanesia:
 -

in addition to Melanesians and Africans carrying Y-chromosomes. Africans also carry mtDNA haplogroups M and M7 like the Melanesians.


 -


.

Posts: 11933 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Akachi
Member
Member # 21711

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Akachi     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:Basically you are saying that the black people in tropical environments around the world are black because they recently came from Africa.
I don't subscribe to the bullshit notion of climate affecting skin color. I don't subscribe to the theory that limb proportions indicate skin color. To me that is an agent argument to hide to plain fact that Caucasians are GENETICALLY RECESSIVE, and thus climate has NO AFFECT on their skin, HAIR, and EYE colors.

While it is true that all natural (those that don't die from sun exposure) original human groups came from Africa (Africoid) and are melaninated that point is not the fruit of my argument. We know from various lines of evidence that multiple waves of Africoid populations migrated throughout Asia. They include the Twa, aboriginal Australians, Tamil (Dravidians), and yes that boogie man " Niger-Congo "Negroid" populations.

The evidence that I used to prove that the Niger-Congo populations migrated into that region relatively recently is the presence of their BLOOD HAPLOTYPE (sickle cell etc) found through Eastern Asia and the Pacific. The fact that their blood lineage is found in those remote populations who look identical in phenotype to them and practice their same traditions is all of the evidence needed to make a sound conclusion independent of Whitey.

quote:
Again, please explain how the DNA of Africans is FAR FROM the DNA of Melanesians?
Dr. Clyde Winters has pointed out several times on this page that your statement is bullshit.

 -

Therefore there is in fact more genetic evidence coupled with the common sickle cell lineage that has been provided proving that the link between Niger-Congo speaking Africans and Melanesians is not superficial.

quote:
And I also understand that black populations have also existed outside tropical areas up until relatively recently (last 10,000 years) as a result of migration from tropical environments followed by adaptation to low UV Northern environments. The science and facts back this up.
Now what you spouted is bullshit! I specified the Niger-Congo populations who are identified anthropologically traditionally as the "true Negroid" populations of Africa have been outside of tropical environments for over 30,000. They did not move into tropical Africa as a whole (Manding-NigerCongo speakers were in Saharan Dhar Tichitt - ancient "Ghana") until after the 6th century B.C.E. during the Late Dynastic period when Kemets population ceased to be Negroid and great biological change in the African nation (as has been consistently noted by anthropological studies) had taken place.

The "Negroid" "Nigerians" Nok civilization which followed Nile Valley traditions with Nile Valley iron smelting technology (Kush) suddenly emerges around this same century. This goes to show that our presence anywhere in the World is noted by civilization. When the Devil's destroyed our civilizations we moved south and built new civilizations .

 -
 -

Incorporating this missing patch of our story proves that being in a wet tropical environment does not have a damn thing to do with the robust features of "Niger-Congo" "true Negroid" Africans. Nazlet Khater proves that those particular Africans for the majority of their known existence have been in the dry deserts and Valleys of Northern Africa that you and others credit for the keen features of Ethiopic populations in the East....See it's all the Devil's game that you are promoting.

Posts: 313 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Moderator
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Akachi:
don't subscribe to the bullshit notion of climate affecting skin color. I don't subscribe to the theory that limb proportions indicate skin color. To me that is an agent argument to hide to plain fact that Caucasians are GENETICALLY RECESSIVE, and thus climate has NO AFFECT on their skin, HAIR, and EYE colors.


 -
Kim Jong-Un, leader of Korea

Why are there multi millions of light skinned people in the Northern Hemisphere?

Posts: 31207 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Suspended
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:

 -
Kim Jong-Un, leader of Korea

Why are there multi millions of light skinned people in the Northern Hemisphere?

As is typical with lioness, the thinking is convoluted.

Looking at the redness of the young woman on the left of the "Great Leader" (from our vantage), one would naturally assume she is a recent Albino, which is probably true. But to assume that all Koreans are "Naturally" like that is an error.

In Korea, like all over the world, the "Natural" color of healthy humans is Black.

 -


 -
Korean prisoners on board an American ship, June 1871.

 -
Secretary Drew, Minister Low and Chinese interpreters on board the flagship USS Colorado, May 1871.

 -
South Korea’s elderly


 -

North Korean men stand next to a field that was damaged by July flooding Aug.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As is readily apparent, sometime in the past, the worlds Albinos and their nearest Mulattoes usurped Blacks and made themselves the masters. They followed that up by writing Blacks out of history, and out of media, so that by appearance, Blacks did not exist.

In this case, they have also convinced the world that North Korea is a COLD weather country.

Actually North Korea is at 40-45 degrees north. The same as Northern Spain and Southern France, and Pennsylvanian and New York in the U.S.

Posts: 22719 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:


As is readily apparent, sometime in the past, the worlds Albinos and their nearest Mulattoes usurped Blacks and made themselves the masters. They followed that up by writing Blacks out of history, and out of media, so that by appearance, Blacks did not exist.


.

 -
.
Doug and other researchers on this site constantly reproduce Eurocentric myths to divide Black People.They popularize the idea that the only Africans in Asia came 60kya, and that after that time Africans remained in Africa. They teach this myth because they don't know their history and believe that as long as they quote Eurocentric myths about Black people they will be considered intelligent. In reality, they are seen as ignorant, by Afro-Americans who have studied ancient Black history with an open mind.

Knowing your history will reinvigorate your mind and spirit. Europeans are against Afrocentrism because it teaches historical truths, while concensus history sustains White Supremacy.


Amos Wilson in The Falsification of Afrikan consiousness: Eurocentric history, psychiatry and the politics of white supremacy believes that the African spirit and mind can be healed through the advancement of African centered historiagraphic, social and
natural sciences. Wilson wrote "Apparently the rewriting, the distortion and the stealing of our history must serve vital economic, political and social functions for the Europeans or slse he would not bother and try so hard to keep our history away from us, and to distort it in our own minds" (p.15).

To Wilson we should see history as psychohistory, since the aim of writing Black people out of history is to destroy any sense of intelletual or social self-esteem for African people. Wilson noted that" In the final analysis, European history's principal
function is to first separate us from ourselves and separate us from the reality of the world; to separate us from the reality of our history and to separate us from its ramifications"(p.24).

Wilson maintains that we must study Afrocentric History, because Europeans use history as a way of maintaining white supremacy; and the study of history by Blacks is a threat to the status quo. Some Black people beliew that the writing of history
is neutral. Writing history is not neutral. Michael Parenti, in History as Mystery (1999), believes that history is not neutral. In his opinion history is written by the ruling class to solidify their position. He observed that "much written history is an ideologically safe comodity. It might best be called "mainstream history", "orthodox history", "conventional history" and even "ruling-class history" because it presents the dominant perspective of the affluent people who preside over the major institutions of society" (Perenti, p.xi).

Parenti, supports Wilsons' view on the impact of Eurocentrism on education when he noted that " many history and political science programs offered in middle and higher education rest on a Eurocentric bias" (p.xiv). As a result, Parenti argues that we learned a "disinformational history" which represents the viwes of the ruling class rather than real history (p.10). As a result, Parenti claims that we have "consensus history textbooks" that teach history from a distorted base.

The comments of Wilson and Parenti,make it clear that history is not written from a neutral perspective, it is written by historians who define what history is or is not. This means that due to doxa, the personality and preconceptions of the historians determine how he writes history. As a result, we find that "establishment" historians usually write history which supports the dominant view of the ruling class, which primarially support
institutions of higher learning through well funded endowments. The allegience of a particular historian to a class or "association" means that when the historian identifies, selects and interprets facts, and the framework used to appraise the facts will be
guided by the truths accepted by the "association" or social class. This is why Jacques Berlinerblau, in Heresy in the University: The Black Athena controversy and the responsibilities of American intellectuals (1999), observed that "How can a social-scientist, a historian, a literary criticm etc., claim that his or her conclusion are in any way true when it is so abundantly clear that these conclusions are inextricably bound with the social and political contexts in which he or she works and lives?"(p.192).

Since history is written from the perspective of the person writing history, an Afrocentric scholar's work should be respect just as much as the writing of a Eurocentric or "establishment" historian, but this is not the case.

This is why both Eurocentric and so-called Liberal historians will usually agree that Blacks lack any type of ancient history, or association with Egyptian history. They agree, because both groups do not believe that Blacks have a ancient history due to their absorption of "concensus history", that deny any role of blacks in ancient history except as "Ethiopian" or "Nubian" slaves among the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians.

Afrocentric researchers correct this myth by writing about the history of Blacks in ancient times.

Posts: 11933 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:

The Main DNA haplogroups of the Pacific are M and N lineages along with some Q lineages, plus some B lineages. Those are not "African" lineages:
 -

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0052022

M haplogroups in Melanesia:
 -

in addition to Melanesians and Africans carrying Y-chromosomes. Africans also carry mtDNA haplogroups M and M7 like the Melanesians.


 -


.

Clyde, stop. The scholars you are citing aren't saying what you say they do. They do not agree with you. Most of Asians carry M lineages, including Southeast Asia, India and East Asia. So are those people also Africans? These aren't the same M lineages. You are simply distorting the facts.

 -

So if you are reasearcher, then how on earth can you twist the words of scholars to say the exact opposite of what their studies say?

quote:

Am J Hum Genet. 2003 Jun; 72(6): 1586–1590.
doi: 10.1086/375407
PMCID: PMC1180321

South Asia, the Andamanese, and the Genetic Evidence for an “Early” Human Dispersal out of Africa

Richard Cordaux and Mark Stoneking


________________________________________

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v11/n3/full/5200949a.html


European Journal of Human Genetics (2003) 11, 253–264. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5200949

Mitochondrial DNA analysis reveals diverse histories of tribal populations from India

Richard Cordaux1, Nilmani Saha2, Gillian R Bentley3, Robert Aunger4, S M Sirajuddin5 and Mark Stoneking

Nowhere in any of these studies do they say these populations are "Recent" migrants from Africa.
Posts: 7063 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Akachi:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:Basically you are saying that the black people in tropical environments around the world are black because they recently came from Africa.
I don't subscribe to the bullshit notion of climate affecting skin color. I don't subscribe to the theory that limb proportions indicate skin color. To me that is an agent argument to hide to plain fact that Caucasians are GENETICALLY RECESSIVE, and thus climate has NO AFFECT on their skin, HAIR, and EYE colors.

While it is true that all natural (those that don't die from sun exposure) original human groups came from Africa (Africoid) and are melaninated that point is not the fruit of my argument. We know from various lines of evidence that multiple waves of Africoid populations migrated throughout Asia. They include the Twa, aboriginal Australians, Tamil (Dravidians), and yes that boogie man " Niger-Congo "Negroid" populations.

The evidence that I used to prove that the Niger-Congo populations migrated into that region relatively recently is the presence of their BLOOD HAPLOTYPE (sickle cell etc) found through Eastern Asia and the Pacific. The fact that their blood lineage is found in those remote populations who look identical in phenotype to them and practice their same traditions is all of the evidence needed to make a sound conclusion independent of Whitey.

quote:
Again, please explain how the DNA of Africans is FAR FROM the DNA of Melanesians?
Dr. Clyde Winters has pointed out several times on this page that your statement is bullshit.

 -

Therefore there is in fact more genetic evidence coupled with the common sickle cell lineage that has been provided proving that the link between Niger-Congo speaking Africans and Melanesians is not superficial.

quote:
And I also understand that black populations have also existed outside tropical areas up until relatively recently (last 10,000 years) as a result of migration from tropical environments followed by adaptation to low UV Northern environments. The science and facts back this up.
Now what you spouted is bullshit! I specified the Niger-Congo populations who are identified anthropologically traditionally as the "true Negroid" populations of Africa have been outside of tropical environments for over 30,000. They did not move into tropical Africa as a whole (Manding-NigerCongo speakers were in Saharan Dhar Tichitt - ancient "Ghana") until after the 6th century B.C.E. during the Late Dynastic period when Kemets population ceased to be Negroid and great biological change in the African nation (as has been consistently noted by anthropological studies) had taken place.

The "Negroid" "Nigerians" Nok civilization which followed Nile Valley traditions with Nile Valley iron smelting technology (Kush) suddenly emerges around this same century. This goes to show that our presence anywhere in the World is noted by civilization. When the Devil's destroyed our civilizations we moved south and built new civilizations .

 -
 -

Incorporating this missing patch of our story proves that being in a wet tropical environment does not have a damn thing to do with the robust features of "Niger-Congo" "true Negroid" Africans. Nazlet Khater proves that those particular Africans for the majority of their known existence have been in the dry deserts and Valleys of Northern Africa that you and others credit for the keen features of Ethiopic populations in the East....See it's all the Devil's game that you are promoting.

Yeah. So the fact that all these black folks you claim are recent African migrants live in tropical areas but that has nothing to do with it. Because if what you were saying is true then black folks would be everywhere on the planet and "evil genetic recessive white mutants" as you call them would only be in caves. But they aren't. They live in Northern Latitudes as would be expected based on adaptation to Northern Climates and the black folks live in Tropical climates thus retaining their original tropical adaptation like their ancient African ancestors.

Either way, the idea that somebody has to buy into some absurd convoluted explanation for something that is blatantly obvious and straight forward is the issue. Don't try to turn this into a 'pro black' issue. Nobody has to buy into what you are selling to get your 'pro black' stamp of approval. That isn't even really 'pro black'.

Heck, even folks like John Henrik Clark pointed out that black people are people of the Sun....

Posts: 7063 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KING
Member
Member # 9422

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for KING     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DougM

Black People are found throughout the world. Black people are found in North America.

DougM stop trying to win an argument, and actually listen to what People are telling you. Stop the ego, don't end up like lioness

Posts: 9190 | From: Peace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Akachi:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:Basically you are saying that the black people in tropical environments around the world are black because they recently came from Africa.
I don't subscribe to the bullshit notion of climate affecting skin color. I don't subscribe to the theory that limb proportions indicate skin color. To me that is an agent argument to hide to plain fact that Caucasians are GENETICALLY RECESSIVE, and thus climate has NO AFFECT on their skin, HAIR, and EYE colors.

While it is true that all natural (those that don't die from sun exposure) original human groups came from Africa (Africoid) and are melaninated that point is not the fruit of my argument. We know from various lines of evidence that multiple waves of Africoid populations migrated throughout Asia. They include the Twa, aboriginal Australians, Tamil (Dravidians), and yes that boogie man " Niger-Congo "Negroid" populations.

The evidence that I used to prove that the Niger-Congo populations migrated into that region relatively recently is the presence of their BLOOD HAPLOTYPE (sickle cell etc) found through Eastern Asia and the Pacific. The fact that their blood lineage is found in those remote populations who look identical in phenotype to them and practice their same traditions is all of the evidence needed to make a sound conclusion independent of Whitey.

quote:
Again, please explain how the DNA of Africans is FAR FROM the DNA of Melanesians?
Dr. Clyde Winters has pointed out several times on this page that your statement is bullshit.

 -

Therefore there is in fact more genetic evidence coupled with the common sickle cell lineage that has been provided proving that the link between Niger-Congo speaking Africans and Melanesians is not superficial.

quote:
And I also understand that black populations have also existed outside tropical areas up until relatively recently (last 10,000 years) as a result of migration from tropical environments followed by adaptation to low UV Northern environments. The science and facts back this up.
Now what you spouted is bullshit! I specified the Niger-Congo populations who are identified anthropologically traditionally as the "true Negroid" populations of Africa have been outside of tropical environments for over 30,000. They did not move into tropical Africa as a whole (Manding-NigerCongo speakers were in Saharan Dhar Tichitt - ancient "Ghana") until after the 6th century B.C.E. during the Late Dynastic period when Kemets population ceased to be Negroid and great biological change in the African nation (as has been consistently noted by anthropological studies) had taken place.

The "Negroid" "Nigerians" Nok civilization which followed Nile Valley traditions with Nile Valley iron smelting technology (Kush) suddenly emerges around this same century. This goes to show that our presence anywhere in the World is noted by civilization. When the Devil's destroyed our civilizations we moved south and built new civilizations .

 -
 -

Incorporating this missing patch of our story proves that being in a wet tropical environment does not have a damn thing to do with the robust features of "Niger-Congo" "true Negroid" Africans. Nazlet Khater proves that those particular Africans for the majority of their known existence have been in the dry deserts and Valleys of Northern Africa that you and others credit for the keen features of Ethiopic populations in the East....See it's all the Devil's game that you are promoting.

Yeah. So the fact that all these black folks you claim are recent African migrants live in tropical areas but that has nothing to do with it. Because if what you were saying is true then black folks would be everywhere on the planet and "evil genetic recessive white mutants" as you call them would only be in caves. But they aren't. They live in Northern Latitudes as would be expected based on adaptation to Northern Climates and the black folks live in Tropical climates thus retaining their original tropical adaptation like their ancient African ancestors.

Either way, the idea that somebody has to buy into some absurd convoluted explanation for something that is blatantly obvious and straight forward is the issue. Don't try to turn this into a 'pro black' issue. Nobody has to buy into what you are selling to get your 'pro black' stamp of approval. That isn't even really 'pro black'.

Heck, even folks like John Henrik Clark pointed out that black people are people of the Sun....

As I have repeated several times you have refuted nothing I wrote. Black people in the Pacific are recent migrants from Africa. Stay if you which in the void of white supremacy, and illiteracy of the history of Black people. Keep waiting for the Eurocentric Academe to tell you what is already in front of your eyes.
Posts: 11933 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3