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
Doug, wake up
Slavery of Africans was vastly exaggerated Only a few thousand were actual slaves imported from Africa. Take Brazil for instance. Most blacks in Brazil are Black Native Americans. United States same, thing
"African American" is a misnomer invented by white supremacist operatives.
The average Black person in America is 80% Black Native American 10% Black indigenous European 7% African 3% "white" European (but many not at all)
Compare that to the highly diluted so called "Native American" you find on the reservations, they're about 70% white, Mestizos jealous of Black hsitory
So the great thing about this is that America belongs to Black Native Americans, not the mongoloid fakers. So as soon as black people wake up to their Indigenous American roots we can reclaim this land we own as a sovereign people.
Look at the revolution on the internet, not just on Egyptsearch We are finally "correcting" history
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
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
Dude. I am not trying to join a cult. If you want to engage in a debate then fine. You need to back up your opinions with facts. This isn't about agreeing with people just because you want to be on some bandwagon. If what you are saying its nonsense and not supported by facts, I will call it out. You aren't doing a service to anyone in promoting half baked nonsense theories just for the sake of 'black pride'. That isn't how this works.
But then again there are a lot of frauds running around promoting cults as some sort of pseudo-black nationalism and generally doing nothing but setting black folks back in the process. Most of the time indoctrination starts by forcing people to stop believing in facts and accept whatever DOGMA they are teaching. Of course the goal is never to accomplish nothing tangible other than to convert people to believe in whatever they are teaching....
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Clyde, you can believe what you want to believe. But only until you are able to provide facts to support those theories will I accept it. And that goes for everybody.
The point is I know black people have been in the world since humans left Africa. I don't NEED them to be recent African migrants to accept this fact. You seem to feel that somehow there has to be some 'RECENT' African ancestry in order to accept these facts.
Again, you resort to misrepresenting facts reported by others in order to further your case, using white authors no less and then want to sit up here and argue about "white supremacy". If that is the case, then produce your own DNA studies. Simply trying to hide the fact that your data is faulty behind this claim of "white supremacy" doesn't cut it.
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.
posted
Doug 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. Millet cultivation originated in Africa around 5kya in middle Africa. It was taken to India and East asia by Africans.
Australians do not cultivate millet.
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.
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.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
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:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Clyde, you can believe what you want to believe. But only until you are able to provide facts to support those theories will I accept it. And that goes for everybody.
The point is I know black people have been in the world since humans left Africa. I don't NEED them to be recent African migrants to accept this fact. You seem to feel that somehow there has to be some 'RECENT' African ancestry in order to accept these facts.
Again, you resort to misrepresenting facts reported by others in order to further your case, using white authors no less and then want to sit up here and argue about "white supremacy". If that is the case, then produce your own DNA studies. Simply trying to hide the fact that your data is faulty behind this claim of "white supremacy" doesn't cut it.
You don't want to know the truth. You know my findings are not "faulty" because they are based on data already verified by other researchers.
Your problem is not the data, you have an inferiority complex and can not believe anything unless it is written by white "authorities".
I have not misrepresented any facts. The data I cite is accurate and valid.
I have presented DNA evidence linking Melenesians and Africans.
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.
This Figure makes it clear Africans, Australians and Melanesians share haplogroups.
The other DNA I compared was the relationship between the African and Melanesian M haplogroups.
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:
in addition to Melanesians and Africans carrying Y-chromosomes. Africans also carry mtDNA haplogroups M and M7 like the Melanesians.
It is obvious from the above that I have not misrepresented any of the genomic data I cited.
As I said before, you have presented no archaeological, anthropological or linguistic evidence proving Africans and Melanesians are not related.
Doug Stop being an apologist for Eurocentrists who want to separate Blacks in Africa and Melanesia. .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QB] Akachi you are right Oceanic and Africans share a common bloodline.
DNA is showing the same correspondence.
^ the above is your own chart.
There is no correspondence you are making up stuff
K does not originate in Africa and E is not a Y group of Oceanians
In fact if you look at these haplogroups and their frequencies in various regions, they are not common to the two groups
Your theory is that humans stopped evolving after they left Africa so no genetic mutations occured forming new haplogroups. That is not science it's a political theory
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QB] Akachi you are right Oceanic and Africans share a common bloodline.
DNA is showing the same correspondence.
^ the above is your own chart.
There is no correspondence you are making up stuff
K does not originate in Africa and E is not a Y group of Oceanians
In fact if you look at these haplogroups and their frequencies in various regions, they are not common to the two groups
Your theory is that humans stopped evolving after they left Africa so no genetic mutations occured forming new haplogroups. That is not science it's a political theory
Stupid racist Euronut. You wouldn't know what was science if it hit you in the face.
The correspondences in this chart of Africans , Australians and Melanesians shared common haplogroups was illustrated by Cordaux et al.,Mitochodrial DNA analysis reveals diverse tribal histories of tribal populations from India, Eur. J Hum Genet (2003)11(2):253-264. Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Figure 5. The table also provides the number of sequences in each cluster sampled in the following geographic areas: Africa, Australia, Papua-New-Guinea (PNG), West Eurasia (W Eurasia), East Eurasia (E Eurasia) and India ('NE tribes': northeast tribes; 'S tribes': south tribes).
Mitochondrial DNA analysis reveals diverse histories of tribal populations from India 2003
Richard Cordaux1, Nilmani Saha2, Gillian R Bentley3, Robert Aunger4, S M Sirajuddin5 and Mark Stoneking1
Indians do not show particular affinities to Africans.
It's easy to see this if you look at the DNA, Europeans are closer to Indians than Africans
misrepresenting a chart is not the way
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^Those are not correspondences all the chart shows is the number of sequences in each cluster sampled in the each geographic areas
Figure 5. The table also provides the number of sequences in each cluster sampled in the following geographic areas: Africa, Australia, Papua-New-Guinea (PNG), West Eurasia (W Eurasia), East Eurasia (E Eurasia) and India ('NE tribes': northeast tribes; 'S tribes': south tribes).
Mitochondrial DNA analysis reveals diverse histories of tribal populations from India 2003
Richard Cordaux1, Nilmani Saha2, Gillian R Bentley3, Robert Aunger4, S M Sirajuddin5 and Mark Stoneking1
Indians do not show particular affinities to Africans.
It's easy to see this if you look at the DNA, Europeans are closer to Indians than Africans
misrepresenting a chart is not the way
LOL. Lying Euronut Racist. The chart shows a relatiohship. You just can't handle the truth.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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
Dude. I am not trying to join a cult. If you want to engage in a debate then fine. You need to back up your opinions with facts. This isn't about agreeing with people just because you want to be on some bandwagon. If what you are saying its nonsense and not supported by facts, I will call it out. You aren't doing a service to anyone in promoting half baked nonsense theories just for the sake of 'black pride'. That isn't how this works.
But then again there are a lot of frauds running around promoting cults as some sort of pseudo-black nationalism and generally doing nothing but setting black folks back in the process. Most of the time indoctrination starts by forcing people to stop believing in facts and accept whatever DOGMA they are teaching. Of course the goal is never to accomplish nothing tangible other than to convert people to believe in whatever they are teaching....
DougM
Why is it a cult only because white person never told you what is in front of youyr eyes.
THERE HAS BEEN AN HUGE COVERUP DOUG THATS A AFACT
ABRAHAM LINCOLN WAS COVERED UP AND IS ACTUALLY A BLACK PERSON.
What makes you think that the white man that you are kissing up to is telling you the truth???
what makes you think that Black people could not leave the continent of Africa recently doug???
what makes you think that Black Americans are not Really from America even though theres more then 42million of them.
why have you turned into lioness the devil whore.
whats this cult nonsense??? Clyde and Mike are trying to move on to presenting facts about the real ways of the Black world, why should they stay arguing with you about something thats a proven fact???
You actually think that Blacks only originate in the tropics and never left Africa..Who is really in a cult???
Must suck that Clyde and Mike have been right all along and They were getting clowned by yall back in the day now there FACTS are Proven to be RIGHT. Get over your ego Doug.
Eurapeans are liars
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Clyde, you can believe what you want to believe. But only until you are able to provide facts to support those theories will I accept it. And that goes for everybody.
The point is I know black people have been in the world since humans left Africa. I don't NEED them to be recent African migrants to accept this fact. You seem to feel that somehow there has to be some 'RECENT' African ancestry in order to accept these facts.
Again, you resort to misrepresenting facts reported by others in order to further your case, using white authors no less and then want to sit up here and argue about "white supremacy". If that is the case, then produce your own DNA studies. Simply trying to hide the fact that your data is faulty behind this claim of "white supremacy" doesn't cut it.
You don't want to know the truth. You know my findings are not "faulty" because they are based on data already verified by other researchers.
Your problem is not the data, you have an inferiority complex and can not believe anything unless it is written by white "authorities".
I have not misrepresented any facts. The data I cite is accurate and valid.
I have presented DNA evidence linking Melenesians and Africans.
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.
This Figure makes it clear Africans, Australians and Melanesians share haplogroups.
The other DNA I compared was the relationship between the African and Melanesian M haplogroups.
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:
in addition to Melanesians and Africans carrying Y-chromosomes. Africans also carry mtDNA haplogroups M and M7 like the Melanesians.
It is obvious from the above that I have not misrepresented any of the genomic data I cited.
As I said before, you have presented no archaeological, anthropological or linguistic evidence proving Africans and Melanesians are not related.
Doug Stop being an apologist for Eurocentrists who want to separate Blacks in Africa and Melanesia. .
Clyde you are making absolutely no sense. You cite studies that say that the Melanesians are the descendants of the first migrants to Asia 50,000 years ago and claim they are supporting your theories.
I am done with this. You simply are spamming the same stuff over and over again as if that changes anything when it doesn't.
Did you not cite the Cordeaux study? And what does it say:
South Asia, the Andamanese, and the Genetic Evidence for an “Early” Human Dispersal out of Africa
Richard Cordaux and Mark Stoneking
Otherwise, mtDNA haplotypes in South Asian ethnic groups are most closely related to east Eurasians and do not show any particular ties to African or PNG populations (Kivisild et al. 2003; Cordaux et al. 2003). In addition, an mtDNA control region motif proposed by Forster et al. (2001) to represent a signature of an early migration from Africa to Sahul through the southern route is not found in South Asia (Cordaux et al. 2003). In summary, there is no convincing support to date for a Middle Paleolithic genetic contribution to South Asia by migrants from Africa to Sahul along the southern route.
If so, and in light of the genetic and archeological evidence, the most reasonable scenario for the peopling of South Asia is an Upper Paleolithic event (i.e., the major expansion of modern humans out of Africa through the Levant [Lahr and Foley 1994]), from which the current Indian gene pool is derived. Proto-Eurasians subsequently evolved to their present distinct South Asian, East Asian, and European gene pools and expanded ∼30,000 years ago (Forster et al. 2001). Without requiring a Middle Paleolithic migration of modern humans into South Asia, this scenario explains why (i) most South Asian mtDNA clusters coalesce and show signs of demographic expansions ∼30,000 years ago (Kivisild et al. 1999b), (ii) the South Asian mtDNA gene pool is related to (but distinct from) other Eurasian mtDNA pools, (iii) the South Asian mtDNA gene pool does not show close affinities to either Africa or PNG, and (iv) the archeological record does not show evidence for the presence of modern humans in South Asia before ∼30,000 years ago. Hypothesizing a Middle Paleolithic migration to South Asia would create more problems than it would solve: it would, in particular, hardly explain the above crucial points iii and iv.
So sorry Clyde, your own "facts" contradict you.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Haplogroup M4 [4] - found mainly in South Asia but some sequences in Eastern Saudi Arabia Haplogroup M4a - found in Gujarat, India[15] Haplogroup M4b - found among ancient specimens in the Euphrates valley
So your charts are not even adding up
back to the drawing table
--Also just because there are some M clades in very small frequencies other than M1 in Africa doesn't mean they originated in Africa. Some of them evolved thousands of years after, outside of Africa
Again, you have a chart at top showing Oceania M4 then below a map of Africa with no M4
Do you realize you just debunked yourself ??
Clyde stop the spamming it's time to face the music
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: 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.
NO it doesn't! Notice how you completely run from the facts surrounding the Nazlet Khater man who is proof that "true Negroid"-"Niger-Congo" speaking populations have lived in a predominantly SUBtropical desert/river valley for over 30,000 years. This fact renders the notion of their robust features being an "adaption" to wet tropical climate obsolete. That fact therefore means THAT THE "TROPICS" DOES NOT MAKE MELANINATED AFRICAN MELANINATED, nor does it contribute to the robust features that are seen throughout the populations in it's belt. This fact coupled with the findings of sickle cell in these long term subtropical Pre-Dynastic Kemetic populations and THAT SAME BLOOD LINEAGE being found throughout Southeast Asia, Australia, and the South Pacific is simply proof of a more recent expansion of Niger-Congo Africoid populations.
quote: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.
That facts mentioned above prove that you are talking absolute cac (white and I say so) nonsense!
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Clyde, you can believe what you want to believe. But only until you are able to provide facts to support those theories will I accept it. And that goes for everybody.
The point is I know black people have been in the world since humans left Africa. I don't NEED them to be recent African migrants to accept this fact. You seem to feel that somehow there has to be some 'RECENT' African ancestry in order to accept these facts.
Again, you resort to misrepresenting facts reported by others in order to further your case, using white authors no less and then want to sit up here and argue about "white supremacy". If that is the case, then produce your own DNA studies. Simply trying to hide the fact that your data is faulty behind this claim of "white supremacy" doesn't cut it.
You don't want to know the truth. You know my findings are not "faulty" because they are based on data already verified by other researchers.
Your problem is not the data, you have an inferiority complex and can not believe anything unless it is written by white "authorities".
I have not misrepresented any facts. The data I cite is accurate and valid.
I have presented DNA evidence linking Melenesians and Africans.
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.
This Figure makes it clear Africans, Australians and Melanesians share haplogroups.
The other DNA I compared was the relationship between the African and Melanesian M haplogroups.
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:
in addition to Melanesians and Africans carrying Y-chromosomes. Africans also carry mtDNA haplogroups M and M7 like the Melanesians.
It is obvious from the above that I have not misrepresented any of the genomic data I cited.
As I said before, you have presented no archaeological, anthropological or linguistic evidence proving Africans and Melanesians are not related.
Doug Stop being an apologist for Eurocentrists who want to separate Blacks in Africa and Melanesia. .
Clyde you are making absolutely no sense. You cite studies that say that the Melanesians are the descendants of the first migrants to Asia 50,000 years ago and claim they are supporting your theories.
I am done with this. You simply are spamming the same stuff over and over again as if that changes anything when it doesn't.
Did you not cite the Cordeaux study? And what does it say:
South Asia, the Andamanese, and the Genetic Evidence for an “Early” Human Dispersal out of Africa
Richard Cordaux and Mark Stoneking
Otherwise, mtDNA haplotypes in South Asian ethnic groups are most closely related to east Eurasians and do not show any particular ties to African or PNG populations (Kivisild et al. 2003; Cordaux et al. 2003). In addition, an mtDNA control region motif proposed by Forster et al. (2001) to represent a signature of an early migration from Africa to Sahul through the southern route is not found in South Asia (Cordaux et al. 2003). In summary, there is no convincing support to date for a Middle Paleolithic genetic contribution to South Asia by migrants from Africa to Sahul along the southern route.
If so, and in light of the genetic and archeological evidence, the most reasonable scenario for the peopling of South Asia is an Upper Paleolithic event (i.e., the major expansion of modern humans out of Africa through the Levant [Lahr and Foley 1994]), from which the current Indian gene pool is derived. Proto-Eurasians subsequently evolved to their present distinct South Asian, East Asian, and European gene pools and expanded ∼30,000 years ago (Forster et al. 2001). Without requiring a Middle Paleolithic migration of modern humans into South Asia, this scenario explains why (i) most South Asian mtDNA clusters coalesce and show signs of demographic expansions ∼30,000 years ago (Kivisild et al. 1999b), (ii) the South Asian mtDNA gene pool is related to (but distinct from) other Eurasian mtDNA pools, (iii) the South Asian mtDNA gene pool does not show close affinities to either Africa or PNG, and (iv) the archeological record does not show evidence for the presence of modern humans in South Asia before ∼30,000 years ago. Hypothesizing a Middle Paleolithic migration to South Asia would create more problems than it would solve: it would, in particular, hardly explain the above crucial points iii and iv.
So sorry Clyde, your own "facts" contradict you.
You can't read. the article says "the South Asian mtDNA gene pool does not show close affinities to either Africa or PNG," it did not say there was no affinity.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Haplogroup M4 [4] - found mainly in South Asia but some sequences in Eastern Saudi Arabia Haplogroup M4a - found in Gujarat, India[15] Haplogroup M4b - found among ancient specimens in the Euphrates valley
So your charts are not even adding up
back to the drawing table
--Also just because there are some M clades in very small frequencies other than M1 in Africa doesn't mean they originated in Africa. Some of them evolved thousands of years after, outside of Africa
Again, you have a chart at top showing Oceania M4 then below a map of Africa with no M4
Do you realize you just debunked yourself ??
Clyde stop the spamming it's time to face the music
Stupid racist Euronut, I never said M4, I said haplogroups M and M7.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Haplogroup M4 [4] - found mainly in South Asia but some sequences in Eastern Saudi Arabia Haplogroup M4a - found in Gujarat, India[15] Haplogroup M4b - found among ancient specimens in the Euphrates valley
So your charts are not even adding up
back to the drawing table
--Also just because there are some M clades in very small frequencies other than M1 in Africa doesn't mean they originated in Africa. Some of them evolved thousands of years after, outside of Africa
Again, you have a chart at top showing Oceania M4 then below a map of Africa with no M4
Do you realize you just debunked yourself ??
Clyde stop the spamming it's time to face the music
Stupid racist Euronut, I never said M4, I said haplogroups M and M7.
Clyde you posted the below as an example of African-Oceania correspondence >
^^ It says M4
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I said haplogroups M and M7.
^ Now you're saying M7 but your chart doesn't say M7 but let's suppose it did.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
^^ Clyde you keep screwing up, you map doesn't show M7 or M4 in Africa, so you debunk yourself again with another inconsistency between your charts
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Nazlet Khater man who is proof that "true Negroid"-"Niger-Congo" speaking populations have lived in a predominantly SUBtropical desert/river valley for over 30,000 years. This fact renders the notion of their robust features being an "adaption" to wet tropical climate. That fact therefore means THAT THE "TROPICS" DOES NOT MAKE MELANINATED AFRICAN MELANINATED,
Did you know that "MELANINATED" is not a word. Even white people have eumelanin.
quote:
Nazlet Khater is an archeological site located in Upper Egypt.
Excavations at the Nazlet Khater 2 site (Boulder Hill) yielded the remains of two human skeletons.
One of the skulls was that of a male subadult. The cranium was generally modern in form, but evinced some archaic traits in the temple and mandible areas. Below the skull, the skeleton was robust but otherwise anatomically modern. Morphological analysis of the Nazlet Khater mandible indicates that the specimen was distinct from the examined Late Pleistocene and Holocene North African specimens.
The Nazlet Khater 2 skeleton possesses two plesiomorphic features in its mandible, which are not found among coeval anatomically modern humans.
This suggests that the specimen's ancestors may have interbred with neighboring late archaic humans.
This is one of the 2 skeletons found at Nazlet Khater ^^^
There is no way of knowing the skin color, whether he was dark or light skinned
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Haplogroup M4 [4] - found mainly in South Asia but some sequences in Eastern Saudi Arabia Haplogroup M4a - found in Gujarat, India[15] Haplogroup M4b - found among ancient specimens in the Euphrates valley
So your charts are not even adding up
back to the drawing table
--Also just because there are some M clades in very small frequencies other than M1 in Africa doesn't mean they originated in Africa. Some of them evolved thousands of years after, outside of Africa
Again, you have a chart at top showing Oceania M4 then below a map of Africa with no M4
Do you realize you just debunked yourself ??
Clyde stop the spamming it's time to face the music
Stupid racist Euronut, I never said M4, I said haplogroups M and M7.
Clyde you posted the below as an example of African-Oceania correspondence >
^^ It says M4
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I said haplogroups M and M7.
^ Now you're saying M7 but your chart doesn't say M7 but let's suppose it did.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
^^ Clyde you keep screwing up, you map doesn't show M7 or M4 in Africa, so you debunk yourself again with another inconsistency between your charts
Look at the map again. Racist Euronut.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright Clyde you got me M7 is down there in South Africa, but who even made this chart? You did no doubt so you will have to provide a source for M7 being in SA. However it is not surprising since there are recent East Indians there.
Nevertheless M7 is not West African or anywhere else in Africa and does not originate in Africa and has nothing to do with Afro Americans or Native Americans, the theme of this thread.
No more red herrings please
question:
what do you call an African American mixed with a Native American?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't accept the term African -American as the identity of Blacks native to America. I call my people Afro-American because it acknowledges my African and Black Native American origins.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Nazlet Khater man who is proof that "true Negroid"-"Niger-Congo" speaking populations have lived in a predominantly SUBtropical desert/river valley for over 30,000 years. This fact renders the notion of their robust features being an "adaption" to wet tropical climate. That fact therefore means THAT THE "TROPICS" DOES NOT MAKE MELANINATED AFRICAN MELANINATED,
Did you know that "MELANINATED" is not a word. Even white people have eumelanin.
quote:
Nazlet Khater is an archeological site located in Upper Egypt.
Excavations at the Nazlet Khater 2 site (Boulder Hill) yielded the remains of two human skeletons.
One of the skulls was that of a male subadult. The cranium was generally modern in form, but evinced some archaic traits in the temple and mandible areas. Below the skull, the skeleton was robust but otherwise anatomically modern. Morphological analysis of the Nazlet Khater mandible indicates that the specimen was distinct from the examined Late Pleistocene and Holocene North African specimens.
The Nazlet Khater 2 skeleton possesses two plesiomorphic features in its mandible, which are not found among coeval anatomically modern humans.
This suggests that the specimen's ancestors may have interbred with neighboring late archaic humans.
This is one of the 2 skeletons found at Nazlet Khater ^^^
There is no way of knowing the skin color, whether he was dark or light skinned
I normally make it a point never to respond to you...but I needed to breakdown how asinine your "objections" to the facts regarding the Nazlet Khater skeleton are.
The skull the Nazlet Khater man is "true Negroid". The only people on Earth with the "true Negroid" phenotype are these people and their diaspora.
So it's we're talking about depigmented people sporting a true Negroid morphologically then you are talking about people who look like this.
If you're saying that a morphologically true "Negroid" population did not have melanin then you're arguing at best (in terms of Caucasian supremacist lunacy) that they were albinos of our people. Of course we know however that albinos cannot survive even in that SUBtropical desert heat.
Secondly we know that the Caucasian is the albino (a condition that disabled barechested/natural African living) of the Tamil/Dravidian African. The existence of an entire GENETICALLY RECESSIVE/albino tribe of people however did not exist until 6,000 years ago.
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic