This article proclaims that they found 'G alleles in a Mayan who society was actually influenced by the OLMECS ...
Quote from Article:
------> fragment length polymorphism for the enzyme NlaIII. Additional samples were screened by digestion of the amplified STS with NlaIII and the products analyzed by agarose gel electrophoresis. We assumed that all individuals which have lost the NlaIII site, do so because of a transition. It is also possible, however, that a transversion occurred. The STS also contains a conserved NlaIII site which is a convenient internal control. Individuals with the G allele yielded restriction fragments of 68 and 141 bp. Alternatively, when the A allele was present, products of 39, 68 and 102 bp were resolved. A total of 121 humans, representing 5 continents, and 10 other primates were typed by sequencing and/or restriction analysis. There is a difference between Africans and non-Africans. The STS is polymorphic in Central Africans. The G allele occurred in 19 of 30 Africans typed. Outside Africa, only one sample, a Mayan, had the G allele. As all non-human primates possessed the A allele, this is likely to be the ancestral type.
Joan Hebert, A. Lin, P. A. Underhill, D. Vollrath and L. Cavalli-Sforza. Genetics Department, Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305 <--------
quote:Outside Africa, only one sample, a Mayan, had the G allele.
- Need more than one sample.
- Need to determine 'when' this allele was aquired.
- There are likely millions of people of African descent throughout central and south America.
- A study of 'white' Brazilians showed that much of their mtdna was actually of Indian or African origin.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's important to know when those alleles were actually brought in.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: This is good information but there have been many Mayans found carrying African genes. Check out the following for more information:
What I find interesting about the article is this statement (taken from first link Dr. Winters posted):
Genetic evidence
According to some researchers, contemporary Maya and other Amerind groups show African characteristics and DNA. Underhill, et al. found that the Mayan people have an African Y chromosome [10]. Some researchers claim that as many as seventy-five percent of the Mexicans have an African heritage,[11] although "this gene flow is largely (but not necessarily exclusively) due to the effects of the Atlantic slave trade".
First thing that I noticed is the word play in this statement. The author of this used the words *Mayan People* to suggest more than one, when the article states ONE. Now of course we should know that their is more than one with this G allele because their perhaps are full populations which have not been tested in Mexico, but as it stands ... Underhill said "ONE".
Secondly,history disagree with the statement of the Spaniards and African mixing. For 700 years the Moors ruled the Spaniards so the hatred for these Africans ran 700 years deep.
I've read one report which stated that Mexicans have from 55 to 75% African heritage/dna. Its kind of funny how history ommits information that they don't want people to here about, such as how California became known as California.
I'm wondering has anyone in this forum heard of the amazonian queen Califia? This black queen has recently been turned into a Mythical person, but according to the first Spaniard settlers she was very much real which is how California received its name.
We know that California was not separate from Mexico and according to the Spaniards the amazonians were fierce warriors.
I used this story to show that the Spaniards recorded so-called mythical black people throughout all of Mexico. So lets say the story was made up. Why would they used black people verses Oceanic looking people who supposedly, were the inhabitants of this region? Why would they name a whole state in honor of this queen? Thats what doesn't add up.
In order to kill the ideal of a black Olmec society they had to kill the story of the 'black queen Califia'. The story of Spaniard mixing with black folks and Indians is far fetched.
Its the Native Indians (as Winters and others suggest the word Indi means 'black')who mixed with the ancient Olmecs that were the carriers of African DNA. Where not talking about the *1* G allele.
Where talking about the story of slaves mixing with the spaniards and Indians. THIS story is not the cases. There were some indian tribes that had African slaves (i.e. Cherokee Indians for one)and they didn't fraternize with lowly especially the Spaniards.
It is for this same reason that Southern California Mexicans (mostly from across the boarder) and African Americans are killing each other daily.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The p[roblem with 'classical' types is that they normalize a mean but they do not represent the various 'other representations' of the group. Same as in statistics, where the use of regression to the mean (average) is one part of the whole but does not represent the whole! Same thing with the classical type (phenotype) of Somali represented by doliocephalic index ('elongated head shape) as copmpared to bracheocephailic (big head) assciated with West Africans but also pronounced in Somali Bantus. The 1 person associated with the Africanized Maya may be a founder gene (unknown at this junction) but can present day DNA determine the period that this gene originated. It comes down to a 500 year period and if not a founder gene, at which period did this genetic imprint (of Africa) take place in the New World (1500-2000AD)?
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is the dilemma. African slaves did not mix in with the Spaniards as modern historians suggest. This is what the argument is based on but we know that it the Spaniards had a hatred for Africans unlike that of Northern Europeans.
I will be on the radio discussing 'Africa's unconsciousness and Mind' (on KPFK radio, 90.7 FM :: Click here to listen between 1-2pm PST) this coming up Monday but I think this topic needs to be re-evaluated.
I've listened to Djehuti argument but I've always keep my questions on this subject. There are questions un-answered and I would like to start with this mythical story of the Spaniards mixing with African Slaves in MEXICO.
Many proclaim the evidence is based on Mexican African ancestry in an attempt to remove Africans from the continent[s], yet African skeleton remains have been found as far as South America. This is not based on solid information but speculations in regards to slaves and spaniard love relations. How do we know that the African-ness of Mexicans are based on Slaves an not Africans who were here prior to slavery? The story goes from what I've heard as a native Californian is: Mexicans are a mixture of Native Americans and Spaniards. There is no mention of African admixture. The African ancestry of Mexicans are in the Native Indians/original owners of Mexico (Olmec to Mayan to Aztec).
Here in America ... Africans and Spaniards rarely mix. In Mexico the Spaniards (the royals of Mexico) who poses as Mexican do not touch the dark population.
The Spaniards reported seeing Africans or black folks on many occasion but Europeans have manage to make us thing that they didn't know what they were seeing (Herodotus comes to mind). I mean seriously there is serious room for open debates on this topic.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Underhill, et al (1996) noted that:" One Mayan male, previously [has been] shown to have an African Y chromosome." This is very interesting because the Maya language illustrates a Mande substratum, in addition to African genetic markers. James l. Gutherie (2000) in a study of the HLAs in indigenous American populations, found that the Vantigen of the Rhesus system, considered to be an indication of African ancestry, among Indians in Belize and Mexico centers of Mayan civilization. Dr. Gutherie also noted that A*28 common among Africans has high frequencies among Eastern Maya. It is interesting to note that the Otomi, a Mexican group identified as being of African origin and six Mayan groups show the B Allele of the ABO system that is considered to be of African origin.
Some researchers claim that as many as seventy-five percent of the Mexicans have an African heritage (Green et al, 2000). Although this may be the case Cuevas (2004) says these Africans have been erased from history.
The admixture of Africans and Mexicans make it impossible to compare pictures of contemporary Mexicans and the Olmec. Due to the fact that 75% of the contemporary Mexicans have African genes you find that many of them look similar to the Olmecs whereas the ancient Maya did not.
In a discussion of the Mexican and African admixture in Mexico Lisker et al (1996) noted that the East Coast of Mexico had extensive admixture. The following percentages of African ancestry were found among East coast populations: Paraiso - 21.7%; El Carmen - 28.4% ;Veracruz - 25.6%; Saladero - 30.2%; and Tamiahua - 40.5%. Among Indian groups, Lisker et al (1996) found among the Chontal have 5% and the Cora .8% African admixture. The Chontal speak a Mayan language. According to Crawford et al. (1974), the mestizo population of Saltillo has 15.8% African ancestry, while Tlaxcala has 8% and Cuanalan 18.1%.
The Olmecs built their civilization in the region of the current states of Veracruz and Tabasco. Now here again are the percentages of African ancestry according to Lisker et al (1996): Paraiso - 21.7% ; El Carmen - 28.4% ; Veracruz - 25.6% ; Saladero - 30.2% ; Tamiahua - 40.5%. Paraiso is in Tabasco and Veracruz is, of course, in the state of Veracruz. Tamiahua is in northern Veracruz. These areas were the first places in Mexico settled by the Olmecs. I'm not sure about Saladero and El Carmen.
But a comparison of Olmec figures with ancient Mayan figures , made before the importation of hundreds of thousands of slaves Mexico during the Atlantic Slave Trade show no resemblance at all to the Olmec figures.
This does not mean that the Maya had no contact with the Africans. This results from the fact that we know the Maya obtained much of their culture, arts and writings from the Olmecs. And many of their gods, especially those associated with trade are of Africans. We also find some images of Blacks among Mayan art.
African ancestry has been found among indigenous groups that have had no historical contact with African slaves and thus support an African presence in America, already indicated by African skeletons among the Olmec people. Lisker et al, noted that “The variation of Indian ancestry among the studied Indians shows in general a higher proportion in the more isolated groups, except for the Cora, who are as isolated as the Huichol and have not only a lower frequency but also a certain degree of black admixture. The black admixture is difficult to explain because the Cora reside in a mountainous region away from the west coast”.
Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. Green et al (2000) observed that the discovery of a proportion of African haplotypes roughly equivalent to the proportion of European haplotypes [among North Central Mexican Indians] cannot be explained by recent admixture of African Americans for the United States. This is especially the case for the Ojinaga area, which presently is, and historically has been largely isolated from U.S. African Americans. In the Ojinaga sample set, the frequency of African haplotypes was higher that that of European hyplotypes”.
M.H. Crawford et al (1974).Human biology in Mexico II. A comparison of blood group, serum, and red cell enzyme frequencies and genetic distances of the Indian population of Mexico. Am. Phys. Anthropol, 41: 251-268.
Marco P. Hernadez Cuevas.(2004). African Mexicans and the discourse on Modern Mexico.Oxford: University Press.
James L. Guthrie, Human lymphocyte antigens:Apparent Afro-Asiatic, southern Asian and European HLAs in indigenous American populations. Retrieved 3/3/2006 at: http://www.neara.org/Guthrie/lymphocyteantigens02.htm
R. Lisker et al.(1996). Genetic structure of autochthonous populations of Meso-america:Mexico. Am. J. Hum Biol 68:395-404.
Diehl, R. A., & Coe, M.D. (1995). "Olmec archaeology". In In Jill Guthrie (Ed.), Ritual and Rulership, (pp.11-25). The Art Museum: Princeton University Press.
Underhill,P.A.,Jin,L., Zemans,R., Oefner,J and Cavalli-Sforza,L.L.(1996, January). A pre-Columbian Y chromosome-specific transition and its implications for human evolutionary history, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA,93, 196-200.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Olmecs built their civilization in the region of the current states of Veracruz and Tabasco. Now here again are the percentages of African ancestry according to Lisker et al (1996): Paraiso - 21.7% ; El Carmen - 28.4% ; Veracruz - 25.6% ; Saladero - 30.2% ; Tamiahua - 40.5%. Paraiso is in Tabasco and Veracruz is, of course, in the state of Veracruz. Tamiahua is in northern Veracruz. These areas were the first places in Mexico settled by the Olmecs. I'm not sure about Saladero and El Carmen.
But a comparison of Olmec figures with ancient Mayan figures , made before the importation of hundreds of thousands of slaves Mexico during the Atlantic Slave Trade show no resemblance at all to the Olmec figures
Those stats are outstanding! Yet, there still is a part of this that seems to have loose ends.
The comparison of the Olmec facial features to that of the Mayans is only one comparison. We have to take into consideration the fact that the Mayans were *NOT* the only Native Americans but seemed to be the most POPULAR of them. Tho the Mayans and Olmec's look nothing alike, that doesn't mean there wasn't an Oceanic Native American tribe that didn't look like the Olmecs.
My question to that would be ... who are the Oceanic people and where does their heritage lay. If there is no Oceania looking Natives prior to modern photo's of people who favor the statues then that can easily be summed up as having Olmec heritage and not an Oceania people aside from the Olmec.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. Green et al (2000) observed that the discovery of a proportion of African haplotypes roughly equivalent to the proportion of European haplotypes [among North Central Mexican Indians] *CANNOT* be explained by recent admixture of African Americans for the United States.. This is especially the case for the Ojinaga area, which presently is, and historically has been largely isolated from U.S. African Americans. In the Ojinaga sample set, the frequency of African haplotypes was higher that that of European hyplotypes”.
This statement is self explanatory ... Unless there is an update on this finding I can't really see a major problem with and African origins to the Olmecs or other possible Africans that were here such as ones recorded by the Spaniards.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
My question to that would be ... who are the Oceanic people and where does their heritage lay. If there is no Oceania looking Natives prior to modern photo's of people who favor the statues then that can easily be summed up as having Olmec heritage and not an Oceania people aside from the Olmec.
The Oceanic people are probably related to the Lapita culture bearers. Some of these Blacks came directly from Africa (as evidenced by the numerous West African place names found in this region). Other Blacks came from mainland China after they were forced from the continent by Classical and Contemporary Mongoids after the Zhou conquered the Anyang Shang Dynasty.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol:: - A study of 'white' Brazilians showed that much of their mtdna was actually of Indian or African origin.
Would you happen to have this study - if not do you know where I can find it?
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
The comparison of the Olmec facial features to that of the Mayans is only one comparison. We have to take into consideration the fact that the Mayans were *NOT* the only Native Americans but seemed to be the most POPULAR of them. Tho the Mayans and Olmec's look nothing alike, that doesn't mean there wasn't an Oceanic Native American tribe that didn't look like the Olmecs.
You are right. There were many Blacks, Africans etc. in America hundreds of years before the Olmec arrived in Mexico. These Blacks have wonderful civilizations, but they never reached the cultural level of the Olmecs. The Olmec arrived in Mexico around 1200 BC. These pre-Olmec Blacks built their civilizations as early as 1700BC, 500 years before the Olmec come on the scene.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Olmecs were not the first Africans to create a civilization in Mexico. These Africans came from the ancient Sahara and West Africa.
Africans founded many of the earliest civilizations in the New World. We do not know when these Blacks arrived in the Americas. Scientists theorize that over 5000 years ago a group of African settlers sailing along the West African coast, in their papyrus trading vessels were caught in a storm and drifted aimlessly out to sea. In the Atlantic ocean they were captured by the South Equatorial current and carried across the Atlantic towards the Americas.
We can assume that due to the ability of these explorers to navigate by the stars they were probably able to make a return trip to West Africa. Much of West Africa 5000 years ago was unoccupied. This means that the populations that later moved into West Africa were living in Middle Africa,and the Sahara. These people due to a different climate in the Sahara at this time traveled from community to community by sea. It seems logical to assume that one of these Paleo-African groups travelled down the long extinct rivers of Middle Africa and sailed out into the Atlantic Ocean and was carried to the Americas by the powerful currents found in the Atlantic Ocean.
Mexico and Central America were centers of African civilization 5000 years ago. In Belize , around 2500 B.C., we see evidence of agriculture. The iconography of this period depicts Africoids. And at Izapa in 1358 B.C., astronomer-priests invented the first American calendar. In addition numerous sculptures of blacks dating to the 2nd millennium B.C, have been found at La Venta, Chiapas, Teotihuacan and Tlatilco.
Chiapas Blacks
The African voyagers to the New World came here in papyrus boats. A stone stela from Izapa, Chiapas in southern Mexico show the boats these Africans came in when they sailed to the Americas. These boats were carried across the Atlantic ocean to Mexico and Brazil, by the North Equatorial current which meets the Canaries Current off the Senegambian coast. It is interesting to note that papyrus boats are still being built in West Africa today.
The earliest culture founded by Blacks in Mexico was the Mokaya tradition. The Mokaya tradition was situated on the Pacific coast of Mexico in the Soconusco region. Sedentary village life began as early as 2000BC. By 1700-1500 BC we see many African communities in the Mazatan region. This is called the Barra phase or Ocos complex.
During the Barra phase these Blacks built villages amd made beautiful ceramic vessels often with three legs. They also made a large number of effigy vessels.
The figurines of the Ocos are the most significant evidence for Blacks living in the area during this period. The female figurine from Aquiles Serdan is clearly that of an African woman. Ocos Female
The Blacks of the Mokaya traditions were not Olmec. The civilization of the Mokaya traditions began 700 years before the Olmec arrived in Mexico.
In the Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership (1995), (ed.) by Carolyn Tate, on page 65, we find the following statement “Olmec culture as far as we know seems to have no antecedents; no material models remain for its monumental constructions and sculptures and the ritual acts captured in small objects”. M. Coe (1989), observed that “on the contrary, the evidence although negative, is that the Olmec style of art, and Olmec engineering ability suddenly appeared full fledged from about 1200 BC”.
Mary E. Pye, writing in Olmec Archaeology in Mesoamerica (2000), (ed.) by J.E. Cark and M.E. Pye,makes it clear after a discussion of the pre-Olmec civilizations of the Mokaya tradition, that these cultures contributed nothing to the rise of the Olmec culture. Pye wrote “The Mokaya appear to have gradually come under Olmec influence during Cherla times and to have adopted Olmec ways. We use the term olmecization to describe the processes whereby independent groups tried to become Olmecs, or to become like the Olmecs” (p.234). Pye makes it clear that it was around 1200 BC that Olmec civilization rose in Mesoamerica. She continues “Much of the current debate about the Olmecs concerns the traditional mother culture view. For us this is still a primary issue. Our data from the Pacific coast show that the mother culture idea is still viable in terms of cultural practices. The early Olmecs created the first civilization in Mesoamerica; they had no peers, only contemporaries” (pp.245-46).
Cherla There continues to be no evidence that Olmec civilization originated in Mexico. R.A. Diehl, in The Olmecs (Thames & Hudson, 2004) wrote that “The identity of these first Olmecs remain a mystery. Some scholars believe they were Mokaya migrants from the Pacific coast of Chiapas who brought improved maize strains and incipient social stratification with them. Others propose that Olmec culture evolved among local indigenous populations without significant external stimulus. I prefer the latter position, but freely admit that we lack sufficient information on the period before 1500 B.C. to resolve the issue” (p.25).
quote:Originally posted by KaBa Un Hru: This is the dilemma. African slaves did not mix in with the Spaniards as modern historians suggest. This is what the argument is based on but we know that it the Spaniards had a hatred for Africans unlike that of Northern Europeans.
Many proclaim the evidence is based on Mexican African ancestry in an attempt to remove Africans from the continent[s], yet African skeleton remains have been found as far as South America. This is not based on solid information but speculations in regards to slaves and spaniard love relations. How do we know that the African-ness of Mexicans are based on Slaves an not Africans who were here prior to slavery? The story goes from what I've heard as a native Californian is: Mexicans are a mixture of Native Americans and Spaniards. There is no mention of African admixture. The African ancestry of Mexicans are in the Native Indians/original owners of Mexico (Olmec to Mayan to Aztec).
Here in America ... Africans and Spaniards rarely mix. In Mexico the Spaniards (the royals of Mexico) who poses as Mexican do not touch the dark population.
Some responses: Spaniards are a minority in North America. If you mean Mexicans, they are not Spaniards! Mexico is basically an Indian (native American) country with mestizo offspring. As a result African slavery though existant was not as widespread but it still existed. The Europeans Spaniards interacted more with indigena groups because they were more numerous. The state of Vera Cruz is known to have a much more African presence due to its coastal area! Spaniards are not the royals of MExico and have never been! The language influece is enduring and to does influence native psychology.
The Spaniards had no more of a hatred of Africans than any other. They knew more about the different tribal groups and as a result they preferrred certain Africans for slave work and others for bedroom work! The Fula and other Muslim Africans tended to be more refined so they served the same function as Malinche (read the story, albeit distorted).
Although the African stereotypical phenotype is long gone, the DNA presence is present!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
----> Spaniards are a minority in North America. If you mean Mexicans, they are not Spaniards! <----
Believe me I know the difference between a Spaniard and a Mexican.
Now do your research on this .. you also said that Spaniards are not the the royals of Mexico and I beg to differ.
The more Native Indian one has the more that individual is closer to the lower class. The least amount of Native Indian one has the better chance they have at excelling in Mexico. When the Spaniards migrated to Mexico, all of them did not integrate with the Native Indian population and this is for certain.
There is a saying in Mexico in reference of the "white Spaniard" mixing with an Indian: "let us better the race".
9% of Mexico's population is 'White - Spaniard' out of a population of 107,449,525 as of July 2006. Mathematically, that equates to 9.670,457.025 people.
9.6 million Spaniards are still in Mexico and your arguing about what? I know the difference between Mexicans and Spaniards and I know the two do not like to be confused with each other, but it is a fact that all Spaniard that had to migrate into Mexico didn't mix with the Natives.
quote:This theory sounds plausible. In many ways, it is appealing. Yet, there's just one little problem. After an experiment lasting nearly 500 years in Latin America, intermarriage has utterly failed to eliminate racial inequality. Mestizo nations like Mexico and mulatto nations like Brazil are bywords for vast concentrations of wealth among the *white ruling class* contrasted with extreme poverty among the darkest citizens. In fact, in Mexico racial segregation is worsening.
That is why there is major division amongst the people of Mexico.
....
yazid904 wrote:
---->The Spaniards had no more of a hatred of Africans than any other <----
R U serious? The Moors conquered and ruled the Spain for over 700 years and you mean to tell me that they don't have a personal problem deeply embedded within their psyche? When they regained their control after learning from the Moors the first thing they did was enslave them and then separate them throughout the New World so that they couldn't gather their strenght again.
As far as the African Muslims is concerned ... I guess they would be more so-called refined being that they were already broken by Muslims who stripped them of their tradition by means of violence. The West African Fuli were converts to Islam ... but if Islam taught that Slavery was good and that black should be slaves then the process of getting them must have been easy.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason they do it is they know so very little about Africa, may possibly unconsciously dislike continental Africans, and/or have a displaced minority mentality that focuses on peripherals.
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: no the olmecs weren't african, stop taking history that's not your own gentlemen, thank ya'll .
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The reason they do it is they know so very little about Africa, may possibly unconsciously dislike continental Africans, and/or have a displaced minority mentality that focuses on peripherals.
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: no the olmecs weren't african, stop taking history that's not your own gentlemen, thank ya'll .
The reason why this was brought back up is because the article stated above. The reasoning you've give alTakruri only satisfies those who believe as you do. In other words the response was weak!
I can really careless but I'm actually trying to become educated in things that I took for granted such as Egyptians being black. I thought they were but I lacked the educated as to why they were black and what constitutes blackness (linguistics, genetics, anthropology).
I don't believe in negative Afrocentric ideals; I don't believe everything someone say just because they have the ability to make sense at times e.g. alTakruri, Djehuti, Rasol, Dr.Winters, Supercar, etc...
Though I have learned a great deal from the names mentioned above I can't just let little comment slide anymore.
Obelisk_18: Prove your statement, I'm all ears if this can be done. alTakruri, just because some of us isn't on the continent doesn't mean we don't consistantly visit or have a strong connection to the continent being that our forefathers had just as much right to the land as their off-springs.
AND ABOVE ALL WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEBATE, EDUCATE AND LEARN ABOUT *OUR* HISTORY AS DIASPORIC AFRICANS.
This forum is spiraling down-ward because the patience level have ceased to exist and then you have those who think they have all the knowledge in the world which equates to the belief that they are above others.
I would like to say however, thank you for the years of knowledge, you guys have been informative to say the least: I got my Ph.D in Theology but the field is weak without a strong foundation in linguistic, anthropology & archaeological research as I have learned on this forum with an added bonus of genetic research...
Just wanted to say thanks ... ask for proof from Obe.. and watch what happens Peace
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
----> may possibly unconsciously dislike continental Africans <----
I don't know about others but that response doesn't apply with me. DNA test to find my village and cultural connects doesn't imply hatred. I want the connection with my people. I think most African Americans get the feel that Africans don't like them and to be honest ... I can't see a point on either end.
Those who give into such ignorance are only puns for the euros.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did I throw a stone at who? One only yelps if the stone strikes them.
There's much to uncover about "black history" right at home on the continent. It takes hard work to learn Africa's history. Many revelations can be made by anyone willing to apply themself to the task.
It's so much easier to pick ancient America, or ancient Caucasus-Persian Gulf, or ancient India, or modern Pacifica for that matter and try to make African history of all or either of them.
However, the base of Africa's ancient history is in Africa. Black Olmecs (yes there were some black Olmecs), black Elamites (why of course they were black), black Indians (two major varieties who have no love for each other; tribals vs Dravidians), black Fijians, Hawaians, Papuans, etc. (very many Pacific islanders are black or as much so as the miscegenated blacks of the Americas) -- none of them substitute for taking up the daunting task of African historiography.
My challenge is to present a writing of Africa's history that focuses on Africa and its diaspora of genetic African lineage not to pick other peoples' cultures and heritage and make it African where it is not African in the least. And yes, where it can be authenticated to be diasporan African (and I as well as others have posted material on Africans abroad) then it too is most assuredly a vital part of Africa's story.
You'll learn more about the orange by studying what's under the peel than studying the peel to the exclusion of its skin pulp and seed.
No, I'm not for a reactionary history of Africa that bases itself on "Europe did thus and so, I will search for where Africa did likewise".
Amani na mapenzi ndugu
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was talking with my Dohgon friend and tutor yesterday and he mentioned that the Olmecs were black. Now he's actually teaching me the 'Mende' language (near future) and the science of the Dogons. He's from Sierra Leone and lived in Mali where he trained as a Dogon High Priest.
I was like if he is saying that the Olmecs were African then could it possibly be true? So I brought it back to this forum where I know people are well informed on such matters.
I believe people just assume which is something I was guilty of for years ...
If you say alTakruri that there were black Olmecs then how was this possible?
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:KaBa Un Hru: R U serious? The Moors conquered and ruled the Spain for over 700 years and you mean to tell me that they don't have a personal problem deeply embedded within their psyche? When they regained their control after learning from the Moors the first thing they did was enslave them and then separate them throughout the New World so that they couldn't gather their strenght again.
As far as the African Muslims is concerned ... I guess they would be more so-called refined being that they were already broken by Muslims who stripped them of their tradition by means of violence. The West African Fuli were converts to Islam ... but if Islam taught that Slavery was good and that black should be slaves then the process of getting them must have been easy.
These two paragraphs of yours contradict each other. You first say that spaniards sort revenge on the Moors by enslaving and seperating them throughout the new world. Then you claim that the muslims (west african fulas) were weak because they were muslims and thus accepted slavery. Do you see the contradiction in your statement? You can't have it both ways, loving the moors but at the same time degrading the muslims. That's hypocrasy on it's highest state. Or maybe you didn't know that the Moors were muslims?
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
My challenge is to present a writing of Africa's history that focuses on Africa and its diaspora of genetic African lineage not to pick other peoples' cultures and heritage and make it African where it is not African in the least. And yes, where it can be authenticated to be diasporan African (and I as well as others have posted material on Africans abroad) then it too is most assuredly a vital part of Africa's story.
The textual, genetic, archaeological and linguistic evidence all indicate that the Sumerians, Elamites and Olmecs are "authenticated to be diasporan African".
There is plenty of African history available. The problem is that most English speaking Africans and Blacks fail to learn foriegn languages as a result, they end up only knowing what Eurocentric speaking Africanist want them to know.
As a result, this history is neither lost or stolen, some people just don't want to do the research to learn this history.
The history of Blacks in the Diaspora on the other hand is hidden. Brain washed Black English speakers know plenty about the former slaves that now live in Asia and the Americas, like the Siddis, but they know nothing about the African origin of the Elamites, Sumerians and Olmecs.
It is this area of research we need more knowledge of , not African history. There is plenty written about Africa in French and German. People need to stop being so lazy and read the history themselves.
You act as if the only Africans were slaves taken to the rest of the world by Europeans and Arabs. This may be your belief but I prefer to look at those Africans who explore the world on their own and made great achievements we all need to know more about.
You write what the Europeans have taught you about their slaves and the slaves of the Arabs.
I will write about Black adventurers who made a difference in the rise of civilizations worldwide.
The Moors were Muslims as you know but the Moors accepted this religious belief system vs. Other West African who were forced to accept this doctrine.
The Moors conquered and captured Europe. On a religious level Moors were Muslims. This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Moor and Muslims does not have a synonym meaning in reference together.
You said that the West African "Fuli and Muslims tend to be more refined". I was implying that they were already conquered by the Islamic jihad/invasion which means that many knew how to act accordingly being that the Muslims Moors ruled Spain. The Spaniards accepted the religion of the Moors which was very similar in doctrines to that of Judaism at that era, and thus when they made it to West Africa, to the people who had already been conquered by Islam; as you put it ... they were more refined in the eyes of the Spaniards who's religion was based on Islam...
That wasn't hard to understand ...
This is not a Muslim issue though... and I could careless about a religion that stripped our people of their most sacred traditions.
What is your point??
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The reason they do it is they know so very little about Africa, may possibly unconsciously dislike continental Africans, and/or have a displaced minority mentality that focuses on peripherals.
You are stewing in your own sauce and grandstanding. Everyone whose been here any length of time has read my postings (with visuals) on African sea movement to places outside the continent, be it northward to the Aegean, eastward to the Persian Gulf, or westward to the Americas.
What you want to write is fairytales, daydreams, and nonesuch. What you need to write is an internal African history before you attempt to write an external pseudo historical work on Africans abroad.
quote:You act as if the only Africans were slaves taken to the rest of the world by Europeans and Arabs. This may be your belief but I prefer to look at those Africans who explore the world on their own and made great achievements we all need to know more about.
You write what the Europeans have taught you about their slaves and the slaves of the Arabs.
posted
It was asked how some Olmec could possibly be black without being African.
Well some were indigenous Americas blacks (and a few of us have already written about how such populations came to the Americas before other populations got there, see the many Luzia threads) and some very few were from the continent. But there was no mass exodus of Mande speakers who birthed the Olmec civilization (see the ad nausium threads on Olmec for thorough presentation both pro and con).
Regarding the refinement of Fula/Fulo women in the Americas, they were known to be beautiful with their classical elongated features, and for that purpose they were preferred over other slaves of other ethnicities. Muslim slaves in the Americas were a minority within a minority and the 'rules' were that they should be separeted from other slaves groups of other ethnicities because they (Islamic captured slaves) tended to forment dissent and cause trouble so they were isolated! What is my source? I have none because this is word of mouth from my tradition (being born in the Caribbean). I can think of a few place where I have seen a similar assertions and one is in Brazil and the other in Cuba. Try the "Masters and the Slaves" by Gilberto Freyre and try to track down other Brazilian sources. The terms are interchangeable here because the person who may be known as Fula/Fulo may have been from another area (Hausa) but the terms stuck!
In Spain, it is known that certain Muslim groups preferred certain areas to settle! Syrians preferred one area, Berbers prfereed another and Sanhaja groups still another. You also had through intermarriage, an intermediate group who, depending on loyalties and phenotype made choices.
Ka also stated that "The Moors conquered and ruled the Spain for over 700 years and you mean to tell me that they don't have a personal problem deeply embedded within their psyche? When they regained their control after learning from the Moors the first thing they did was enslave them and then separate them throughout the New World so that they couldn't gather their strenght again", but this is false regarding sending the Moors to the New World.
Allegiance and phenotype were determining factors but it is well know that those who left went back to areas like Tunisia, Morocco and a lesser extent to Mauritania or Algeria. The ones who fit in blended into the Spanish population (this has been seen in DNA frequency analyses) and those who converted, likewise!
Regarding the Olmec, as to how that gene got to the Americas, it is still interesting to see that link associated with Africa. Despite that, the history is still Native American and then we have how native is NAtive America!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
For 150 years, Mexican schoolchildren have learned that their heritage lies in the marriage of Spanish colonial culture and the conquered races of Native America.
But if ESU assistant professor of Spanish Marco Polo Hernández Cuevas has his way, they’ll also begin to think of themselves as African.
Hernández’s new book “African Mexicans and the Discourse on Modern Nation” published this month by University Press of America exposes how Mexican institutions have systematically erased “Africaness” from national memory. Between 55 and 85 percent of Mexicans can trace their family back to African slaves, but cultural leaders have actively shunned this identity.
“The knowledge of our ancestors has been erased through education,” he said. “Schools have omitted the fact that we had a large African population throughout the Colonial Period which lasted 300 years.”
“It’s estimated that over 300,000 enslaved Africans were brought to Mexico during the colonial period, producing millions of offspring. Many of the major leaguers of the Mexican liberation movement were black themselves. "The last two top commanders of the movement, José María Morelos and Vicente Guerrero, as well as a significant number of other leaders and troops have now been identified as mulattoes pardos."
Hernández finds traces of African culture in many of Mexico’s national traditions – in its food, its music, its cultural icons and its national holidays.
The Black Virgin -- a representation of Virgin Mary with dark skin common throughout Spain, France and Mexico – is one example of African cultural influences. Hernández also points out that the battle commemorated by the national holiday of Cinco de Mayo was fought by African Mexican “maroons.”
His book describes how Mexican cultural leaders have rejected this African heritage, choosing instead to “whiten” Mexican literature, film and popular culture from 1920 to 1968, a period Hernández describes as the “cultural phase of the Mexican Revolution.”
Hernández has gotten the attention of leading scholars in the field of African Latino studies. Richard L. Jackson, professor emeritus at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada writes in the book’s foreward that “his work will contribute greatly to the ongoing discussion of race in the Americans and particularly in Mexico where his research largely stands alone.”
“The interdisciplinary approach he takes exemplifies the pervasive nature of the cult of whiteness and racism and their unfortunate byproducts in a nation that is far from white.”
However, Hernández would like to see his academic research influence identity and behavior throughout general society. “Mexicans, Hispanics, Latinos and African Americans will recognize one another in our common African heritage and bridge the gap that divides us," he said.
quote:Even the Spanish conquistadors brought African heritage with them, as descendants of the Iberians and the Moors of northern Africa who occupied Spain during the medieval era, said Hernández
^ Southern Europeans also brought Malaria with them to the "New world".
Permit a digression...
We used to have self described Latino poster, [Salsa-something] who, for whatever reason...tried to argue that it was Africans who killed the Indians by bringing Malaria, which is and *African* disease.
Of course he pretended not to understand the parodox and hypocrisy of defining Malaria as and ethnically African disease.
Marlaria is likely older than homo sapiens, which means the original African homo sapiens had Malaria, and spread it throughout the world....China, Australia, etc..
What sustains Malaria in humans is a tropical environment.
That New world Indians 'lost' Malaria indicated that much of their ancestry must indeed have migrated across the Malaria free North Bering straight passage.
However...Southern Europeans have had Malaria since at least the Neolithic. [it's not clear that Southern Europe was ever historically Malaria free]
So both Europeans and Africans brought Malaria with them to the New world, and for the same reasons....they came from areas of the world that still had Malaria.
The final Irony of "Salsa's" attempt to 'blame' Malaria on African is that he uses the same fallacy of logic of the Afrocentrists who try to define Australian Aborigines, Southern Indians and others as Africans.
Here then is the point to be grasped....
These peoples are only Africans in the sense that all people are. This means that Homo sapiens is African as a species. Likewise, Malaria is a disease of the species Homo sapiens.
The ethnic *distinctions* between Africans, Europeans, Asians and others can by definition only exist from the time the people settle outside of Africa. Prior to this there are only different African ethnic groups, and no Eurasians at all.
In turn, the descendants of these 1st OOA migrants are non African....in the only sense that anyone can be.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
For 150 years, Mexican schoolchildren have learned that their heritage lies in the marriage of Spanish colonial culture and the conquered races of Native America.
But if ESU assistant professor of Spanish Marco Polo Hernández Cuevas has his way, they’ll also begin to think of themselves as African.
Hernández’s new book “African Mexicans and the Discourse on Modern Nation” published this month by University Press of America exposes how Mexican institutions have systematically erased “Africaness” from national memory. Between 55 and 85 percent of Mexicans can trace their family back to African slaves, but cultural leaders have actively shunned this identity.
“The knowledge of our ancestors has been erased through education,” he said. “Schools have omitted the fact that we had a large African population throughout the Colonial Period which lasted 300 years.”
“It’s estimated that over 300,000 enslaved Africans were brought to Mexico during the colonial period, producing millions of offspring. Many of the major leaguers of the Mexican liberation movement were black themselves. "The last two top commanders of the movement, José María Morelos and Vicente Guerrero, as well as a significant number of other leaders and troops have now been identified as mulattoes pardos."
Hernández finds traces of African culture in many of Mexico’s national traditions – in its food, its music, its cultural icons and its national holidays.
The Black Virgin -- a representation of Virgin Mary with dark skin common throughout Spain, France and Mexico – is one example of African cultural influences. Hernández also points out that the battle commemorated by the national holiday of Cinco de Mayo was fought by African Mexican “maroons.”
His book describes how Mexican cultural leaders have rejected this African heritage, choosing instead to “whiten” Mexican literature, film and popular culture from 1920 to 1968, a period Hernández describes as the “cultural phase of the Mexican Revolution.”
Hernández has gotten the attention of leading scholars in the field of African Latino studies. Richard L. Jackson, professor emeritus at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada writes in the book’s foreward that “his work will contribute greatly to the ongoing discussion of race in the Americans and particularly in Mexico where his research largely stands alone.”
“The interdisciplinary approach he takes exemplifies the pervasive nature of the cult of whiteness and racism and their unfortunate byproducts in a nation that is far from white.”
However, Hernández would like to see his academic research influence identity and behavior throughout general society. “Mexicans, Hispanics, Latinos and African Americans will recognize one another in our common African heritage and bridge the gap that divides us," he said.
quote:Originally posted by KaBa Un Hru: ... African slaves did not mix in with the Spaniards as modern historians suggest.
. . . .
... I would like to start with this mythical story of the Spaniards mixing with African Slaves in MEXICO.
. . . .
... Mexicans are a mixture of Native Americans and Spaniards. There is no mention of African admixture.
Racism is a worldwide problem that has effected both Arab and Hispanic populations...amoung others.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: There's much to uncover about "black history" right at home on the continent. It takes hard work to learn Africa's history. Many revelations can be made by anyone willing to apply themself to the task.
It's so much easier to pick ancient America, or ancient Caucasus-Persian Gulf, or ancient India, or modern Pacifica for that matter and try to make African history of all or either of them.
However, the base of Africa's ancient history is in Africa. Black Olmecs (yes there were some black Olmecs), black Elamites (why of course they were black), black Indians (two major varieties who have no love for each other; tribals vs Dravidians), black Fijians, Hawaians, Papuans, etc. (very many Pacific islanders are black or as much so as the miscegenated blacks of the Americas) -- none of them substitute for taking up the daunting task of African historiography.
My challenge is to present a writing of Africa's history that focuses on Africa and its diaspora of genetic African lineage not to pick other peoples' cultures and heritage and make it African where it is not African in the least. And yes, where it can be authenticated to be diasporan African (and I as well as others have posted material on Africans abroad) then it too is most assuredly a vital part of Africa's story.
You'll learn more about the orange by studying what's under the peel than studying the peel to the exclusion of its skin pulp and seed.
No, I'm not for a reactionary history of Africa that bases itself on "Europe did thus and so, I will search for where Africa did likewise".
I know we two have been "Márquez & Llosa"--off and again. but your contributions here are worth reading and I enjoy very much.
Posts: 2198 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't possess any mirrors. There's one in the bathroom, another in the bedroom, (thought about doing the wall-to-wall thing in the livingroom and a ceiling mirror above the bed).
The mirrors I like best are the ones that reflect from lovely ladies' eyes, ladies who graciously accept and appreciate compliments.
So you may not want them from me but surely you do get them from men who aren't hard to look at (and I don't know a man in this world who believes he's hard to look at. That's not narcicism, that's self-confidence).
Forgive my bad. Promise never to wink at you again. oops!!!
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol:: - A study of 'white' Brazilians showed that much of their mtdna was actually of Indian or African origin.
Would you happen to have this study - if not do you know where I can find it?
The Ancestry of Brazilian mtDNA Lineages The white Brazilian population, paradoxically, seems to be an excellent resource with which to study the phylogeny of western- and central-African mtDNA.
In conclusion, our mtDNA study of a random sample of white Brazilians has revealed an astonishingly high matrilineal contribution of Amerindians and Africans.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol:: - A study of 'white' Brazilians showed that much of their mtdna was actually of Indian or African origin.
Would you happen to have this study - if not do you know where I can find it?
The Ancestry of Brazilian mtDNA Lineages The white Brazilian population, paradoxically, seems to be an excellent resource with which to study the phylogeny of western- and central-African mtDNA.
In conclusion, our mtDNA study of a random sample of white Brazilians has revealed an astonishingly high matrilineal contribution of Amerindians and Africans.
Thank you sir ^
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must say I'm glad to see us having this discussion. I've been studying this topic for years and my thoughts and opinions have varied over the years. I've found most of the discussion pretty interesting and informative. I'm especially glad to see Dr. Winters contributions.
I do have a comment for KaBa Un Hru. Your comments about Spaniards and African slaves not intermixing due to hatred towards blacks as a result of Moorish occupation of Spain is wrong. Puerto Rico and the Dominican republic are two places where you find the vast majority of people are of mixed Spanish and African decent. The Spanish while just as racist as the northern europeans, tended to be a bit more flexible in their attitudes towards race mixing in the new world.
quote:Originally posted by X7aN: I must say I'm glad to see us having this discussion. I've been studying this topic for years and my thoughts and opinions have varied over the years. I've found most of the discussion pretty interesting and informative. I'm especially glad to see Dr. Winters contributions.
I do have a comment for KaBa Un Hru. Your comments about Spaniards and African slaves not intermixing due to hatred towards blacks as a result of Moorish occupation of Spain is wrong. Puerto Rico and the Dominican republic are two places where you find the vast majority of people are of mixed Spanish and African decent. The Spanish while just as racist as the northern europeans, tended to be a bit more flexible in their attitudes towards race mixing in the new world.
It wasn't until it was to late to recant my statement[s] that I remembered altogether the PR's and others. I was speaking from an North American point of view.
I was wrong on this and I stand corrected:
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know of many blondes from Latin America with African ancestry whose appearance is more natural than the Nordic looking ones! and they do not have to go to the beauty shop.
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Forgive my bad. Promise never to wink at you again. oops!!!
Ohh, I see. It was a "wink". It actually looked questionable expression. Questionable about my comments.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I don't possess any mirrors. There's one in the bathroom, another in the bedroom, (thought about doing the wall-to-wall thing in the livingroom and a ceiling mirror above the bed).
That's a bad excuse, AlTakruri.
You can go to Wall Mart, and with super glue of 0.99 $ and 60cm X 60cm piece of mirrors each 2$ , you can turn your livingroom into a ceiling and wall-to-wall mirror. Of course, it depends how stingy you are Posts: 2198 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
When someone asks in Spanish ' y donde esta tu abuelita? (and where is your grandmama?) they are saying they either know your grandma is African (usually) or indigena, OR they see it and they are seeing if you are proud of your roots? Depends who is arsking!
Garifuna in Belize, were originally from the island of St Vincent but they are scattered in in Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua. They were originally Caribs from St Vincent but over time the Afro Caribs groups were more numerous to the extent that they spoke the Carib language and transplanted it to Central America! Guyana and Surinam also share the same historical reference of cimarrones (escaped African slaves) finding refuge with the various Carib or other indigena and surviving in the jungle. They are sometimes called 'Bush Negroes' in Surinam and parts of Guyana.
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
winka winka winkin atchoo by now. No? Yes, yes!![[Wink]](wink.gif)
oops!!!
Printer-friendly view of this topic