This is topic Are Mestizos Jealousy of Afro-American History in forum Deshret at EgyptSearch Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=010238

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 


It is obvious that since 1996 Bernardo Ortiz de Montellano or Quetzalcoatl has spent his time attacking my research on-line. During this time I have illustrated that his attacks lack any foundation.

I have shown that Wiener was right about the Mande substratum in the Mayan language, and the Mande origin of Olmec writing (via Tuxtla statuette) and Mayan calendar. This means that Bernardo has to be attacking my research for some other reason. That reason must be racism and jelousy.

It is no secret that Mestizos like Bernardo, are attacking Blacks in cities where they form a majority, i.e., Los Angeles. Like Bernardo, they claim Afro-Americans are trying to steal their heritage as "Native Americans". This is a lie, Mestizos like Bernardo carry some Africans genes, but they are basically "white" as evident in Bernardo's picture.

I believe that it is the white ancestry of Bernardo and the Mestizo cohort that leads them to attack Afro-Americans. They are happy to accept the fruits of looking like other whites, but they are jealous of Afro-Americans who continue to present the Negro phenotype associated with Native Americans from the paleoamericans up to the Olmecs.




Bernardo is jealous that his color, genetics and phenotype deny any heritage from the Native Americans, and thus any relationship to Native Americans.

This jealousy has caused Bernardo , and other Mestizos to hate Afro-Americans who prove there were Black or African founders of Pre-Columbian American Civilizations. That is why Bernardo attempts to use the bandwagon effect to find support for his spurious comments. Sadly, the Mestizos hate of Blacks is not a new phenomena. Mongoloid Indians have also been jealous of the civilization and creativity of Afro-Mexicans and etc. You can learn more about this attempt to erase Blacks from the history of the Americas, in my video:What happened to the Black Mexicans:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdXVj2vqIhc


.


.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kdolo:
Clyde, Is it jealousy and racism ??

Or more simply, refusal to believe in something that has not been openly sanctioned by the White academic carthedral.

Some people refuse to see what is right in front of them, until it is sanctioned by their 'superiors'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kdolo:
Ckyde, Is it jealousy and racism ??

Or more simply, refusal to believe in something that has not been openly sanctioned by the White academic carthedral.

Some people refuse to see what is right in front of them, until it is sanctioned by their 'superiors'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kdolo:
....could be....

Mestizos and mestizo oriented cultures tend to vigourously protect and advocate White Supremacy....as vigoursly as Whites...

They are usually quite happy being subordinate to Whites and see it as the most natural thing in the World.

Nothing disturbs them more than to see the "darkies" getting out of line...acting up...being "arrogante" as they say in Spanish.

They entire Spanish new world culture is based on this concept

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kdolo:
Then again Mike, aren't you the one who theorized that the White conquest of the new World occurred only with the help/collusion of the Mongol type against the Black type???

Perhaps Mestizos who are largely the result of the White-Mongol pairings harbor the combination of longstanding White and Mongol anti Black sentiment...as a cultural and genetic memory.

---

It is not a theory, it is proven fact with supporting evidence.

The Albinos have no problem admitting that their earlier bullshit about 600 Spaniards defeating the Aztec was a lie.
Now they just don't want you to know that the Aztec were Blacks.




Note this Wiki article:

Fall of Tenochtitlan

The siege of Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztec Empire, was a decisive event in the Spanish conquest of Mexico. It occurred in 1521 following extensive manipulation of local factions and exploitation of preexisting divisions by Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés, who was aided by the support of his indigenous allies and his interpreter and companion Malinche.

Although numerous battles were fought between the Aztec Empire and the Spanish-led coalition, which was itself composed primarily of indigenous (mostly Tlaxcaltec) personnel, it was the siege of Tenochtitlan—its outcome probably largely determined by the effects of a smallpox epidemic (which devastated the Aztec population and dealt a severe blow to the Aztec leadership while leaving an immune Spanish leadership intact)—that directly led to the downfall of the Aztec civilization and marked the end of the first phase of the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire.




(Note: some estimate that 50,000 Mongol Indians took part in the battle, along with a few hundred Spanish).

quote:

---

---

Just like the simple-minded accepted that 600 Spaniards defeated the Aztec:

They also accept that the Spanish/Europeans - ANYBODY - could be IMMUNE from a Disease WITHOUT FIRST GETTING IT!!!!!

Therefore just like the Europeans caught a disease, got sick, and then recovered, so did the native Americans.

Those that died where the murder victims of the degenerate Albinos.

Btw - not meaning to sound racist:

But who is more likely to survive disease or other calamity:

Pigmented people or Albinos?

Just saying.
 

---

Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
 
"But who is more likely to survive disease or other calamity:"


Good point !
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
As to the Mestizos:

Here is how they render Malinche:




.
.


DOES SHE IN ANY WAY RESEMBLE AN AZTEC ??????

NO!!!

The Mestizos are playing the same game as their Albino masters/gods.
Falsely depicting Black people in their image.

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kdolo:
Do you have any more pics of Aztecs ?

---

This page has many lifelike Aztec artifacts.

http://realhistoryww.com./world_history/ancient/Misc/Americas/Aztec_history.htm
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 






History is never neutral, as a result it is the highest point of propaganda. WE have been lied too by the Academe. In school you learn that the Native Americans were all mongoloid people. But this is false. There were Black Native Americans. This was especially true of the Aztecs. Archaeological evidence, Mayan and Spanish descriptions of the Aztec, and pictorial evidence from the codexes indicate they were Black.






.
The Spanish described the Aztec as follows: “The people of this land are well made, rather tall than short. They are swarthy as leopards (see below), of good manners and gestures, for the greater part very skillful, robust, and tireless, and at the same time the most moderate men known. They are very warlike and face death with the greatest resolution” See: Daily Life of the Aztecs – Scribd, www.scribd.com/doc/116295428/Daily-Life-of-the-Aztecs
As you can see it was the Spanish who described the Aztecs as “swarthy” or black like leopards and jaguars.

The African or negro character of the Aztecs is supported by Mexican statements about the Aztecs and the codexes. The Maya called the Aztecs xilaan “curly or frizzy hair”, which is characteristic of Sub-Saharan Africans. In addition we find Black/Negro/African people in the Mexican codexes including Codex Telleriano and Codex Mendoza.
In addition to the textual evidence of Blacks in Mexico we also iconographic evidence from Mayan sub-pyramids of Blacks. For example, there are pictures of black scientists and chief from Xultun pyramid.

The archaeological, textual, and linguistic evidence make it clear the Aztecs were probably Black.The description of the Aztecs by the Spanish and Maya as black and frizzy haired match the pictures of the last Aztecs.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Indigenous Mexicans do not look like Mestizos

.




Some Mestizos may hate themselves. Their light and white skins betry their origin as the products of white French, Spanish and German men who exploited their Black and Mongoloid grandmothers to make the Mestizo raza.

Many Mestizos declare viva la raza, when in reality their faces and features tell the story of exploited indigenous Black and mongoloid women who were raped to satisfy the sexual desire of their white fathers, who murdered the husbands and lovers of their poor mistreated and abused indigenous grandmothers. Mestizos like their grandfathers seek to steal the history of Black Native Americans, because they are ashamed that their real history is the history of the criminals and sexual deviants who made their race.

That is why when they say viva la raza, they are celebrating the rape and exploitation of the indigenous Black and mongoloid people. To be proud of Mestizo heritage, while denying the history of the Black indigenous Americans is just them paying homage to the evil history of their grandfathers.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 



.

.
The Maya called the Aztecs xilaan “curly or frizzy hair”, which is characteristic of Sub-Saharan Africans.
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kdolo:
....could be....

Mestizos and mestizo oriented cultures tend to vigourously protect and advocate White Supremacy....as vigoursly as Whites...

They are usually quite happy being subordinate to Whites and see it as the most natural thing in the World.

Nothing disturbs them more than to see the "darkies" getting out of line...acting up...being "arrogante" as they say in Spanish.

They entire Spanish new world culture is based on this concept

---

.
.


Ethnic cleansing in Dominican Republic

By Cory Doctorow at 12:33 am Wed, Jun 17, 2015


In Sept 2013, a Dominican court ruled that 200,000+ natural-born citizens whose parents were undocumented Haitian workers were no longer entitled to citizenship, rendering them stateless and helpless before the law.Jun 17, 2015


http://boingboing.net/2015/06/17/ethnic-cleansing-in-dominican.html
 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 


According to mainstream history their ancestors walked from Russia with


 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:


According to mainstream history their ancestors walked from Russia with

---

You have confused the peoples:

The Maya were NOT a Mongol people!

In phenotype they were ordinary Blacks.





 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
This is what the Mongol type people looked like.

Note that these people are identified as Maya Warriors. That is information supplied to us.

We do not understand the total relationship between the people.



 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
[QUOTE]
The Maya were NOT a Mongol people!

In phenotype they were ordinary Blacks.

---

According to mainstream history all of the people of North and South America except the handful of paleolithic Europeans are descendants of a crew that walked from Russia.

I'm not the one that's confused. Planet Earth is confused.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
The mongoloid Maya mainly lived in Yucatec. The Black Mayan people mainly lived in Chiapas, Belize, Guatemala and Hondurus. It is here that we find the oldest pyramids.

The mongoloid and Black Mayans were heavily influenced by the Mande speaking Olmecs. As a result we detect a Mande substratum in the Mayan language.

Archaeologists are discovering that under Mayan pyramids we find Olmec inspired iconography. This indicates that the mongoloid people stole Black Mayan civilization and attempted to pass it off as their own creation.

Below are some of the murals from Xultun .







Many pyramids are of Olmec origin. This is evident in the dragon motifs.



This Olmec motif is found on pyramids that were covered over by later Mayan pyramids. These subpyramids were probably built by the Olmec.

.



A good example of the Architectural skill and innovations of the First Nation Blacks is the pyramidal complex at Xultun. These Blacks left evidence of their identity in the architectural workroom.



The Xultun pyramidal complex shows a variety of architectural styles and buildings



The First Nation Blacks in Mexico had a right to create their own architectural style just like other Blacks in Africa who developed different pyramidial style.

Check out this article: Inference of Ancient Black Mexican Tribes and DNA, By Dr. Clyde Winters

Abstract

Background: Controversy surrounds the time period when Indigenous Mexican-African admixture occurred. Most researchers assume this admixture took place after the Atlantic Slave Trade. But, Spanish eyewitness accounts, Mayan skeletons with sickle cell anemia, and West African skeletal remains generally,indicate that there were Black Native Mexican and Meso-American communities in Meso-America before 1492. Using genetic association studies of available Indigenous Mexican and African genome-wide SNP genotypes and HLA we infer the probable pre-or post Columbian date for the admixture. Here we analyze the historical and archaeogentic literature relating to the American foundational haplogroups and HLA to extract ancestry information detailing when Indigenous Mexican-African admixture took place.

Results: Indigenous Mexican and African archaeogenetic, DNA and HLA resources were analyzed to determine to what extent admixture had occurred between these populations. The sample indicated that Indigenous Mexican-African admixture has taken place across Mexican fundamental male and female lineages; and that Africans and Indigenous Mexicans share HLA alleles. In addition, archaeogenetic evidence including, African [Mande] inscriptions, Mande substratum in Mayan languages, Africans depicted in Mayan murals at San Bartolo and Xultun, African skeletons generally, and ancient Mayan skeletons with sickle cell anemia support Spanish eyewitness accounts of Black Native American tribes [Otomi, Chontal (Mayan speaking group) ,Yarura and etc.] in Meso-America when they arrived on the scene.

Conclusion: We demonstrate that given the age of the African skeletons, excavated at Meso-American archaeological sites and Spanish eyewitness accounts of Black Mexicans, Indigenous Mexican- African admixture occurred prior to the European discovery of America. The date for the African skeletons indicate that there were several waves of West Africans who probably introduced African haplotypes into the Americas. The 25,000 Malians who sailed to America in 1310 probably had a major influence on the exchange of African genes in the Americas.

See: https://www.academia.edu/11544535/Inference_of_Ancient_Black_Mexican_Tribes_and_DNA


.



Afro-Mexicans : http://kwekudee-tripdownmemorylane.blogspot.com/2014/08/afro-mexicans-mexicanos-negros-brave.html
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters

Are Mestizos Jealousy of Afro-American History?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters

Are Mestizos Jealousy of Afro-American History?

---

Mestizos by definition are people of combined European and Amerindian ancestry

Afro-Americans Americans are primarily African and on average have a smaller amount of European ancestry.
Some have American Indian, Asian and other ancestry but on average, less than the European admixture

Comparitively the average Afro-American has much less indigenous American ancestry than the average mestizo.
That is not suprising

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters

Are Mestizos Jealousy of Afro-American History?

---

Mestizos by definition are people of combined European and Amerindian ancestry

Afro-Americans Americans are primarily African and on average have a smaller amount of European ancestry.
Some have American Indian, Asian and other ancestry but on average, less than the European admixture

Comparitively the average Afro-American has much less indigenous American ancestry than the average mestizo.
That is not suprising

---

There is a high frequency of African-Mestizo admixture ranging between 20-40% .
The admixture rate between Africans and indigenous Mexican Indians ranges between 5-50% .

References:


1. Lisker R, et al.(1996). Genetic structure of autochthonous populations of Meso-america:Mexico. Am. J. Hum Biol 68:395-404.

2. Suarez-Diaz,E. (2014) Indigenous populations in Mexico. Medical anthropology in the Work of Ruben Lisker in the 1960's. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 47:108-117.

3. Lisker,R.(1981. Estructura genetia de la poblacion Mexicana. Aspectos Medicos y Anthropologica, Mexico: Salvat.

.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters

Are Mestizos Jealousy of Afro-American History?

---

Mestizos by definition are people of combined European and Amerindian ancestry

Afro-Americans Americans are primarily African and on average have a smaller amount of European ancestry.
Some have American Indian, Asian and other ancestry but on average, less than the European admixture

Comparitively the average Afro-American has much less indigenous American ancestry than the average mestizo.
That is not suprising

---

---

quote:

---

There is a high frequency of African-Mestizo admixture ranging between 20-40% .
The admixture rate between Africans and indigenous Mexican Indians ranges between 5-50% .

References:


1. Lisker R, et al.(1996). Genetic structure of autochthonous populations of Meso-america:Mexico. Am. J. Hum Biol 68:395-404.

2. Suarez-Diaz,E. (2014) Indigenous populations in Mexico. Medical anthropology in the Work of Ruben Lisker in the 1960's. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 47:108-117.

3. Lisker,R.(1981. Estructura genetia de la poblacion Mexicana. Aspectos Medicos y Anthropologica, Mexico: Salvat.

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters

Are Mestizos Jealousy of Afro-American History?

---

Mestizos by definition are people of combined European and Amerindian ancestry

Afro-Americans Americans are primarily African and on average have a smaller amount of European ancestry.
Some have American Indian, Asian and other ancestry but on average, less than the European admixture

Comparitively the average Afro-American has much less indigenous American ancestry than the average mestizo.
That is not suprising

---

---

This is an invented graph. Lisker did not use y-chromosomes he used 6GPD

quote:

---

There is a high frequency of African-Mestizo admixture ranging between 20-40% .
The admixture rate between Africans and indigenous Mexican Indians ranges between 5-50% .

References:


1. Lisker R, et al.(1996). Genetic structure of autochthonous populations of Meso-america:Mexico. Am. J. Hum Biol 68:395-404.

2. Suarez-Diaz,E. (2014) Indigenous populations in Mexico. Medical anthropology in the Work of Ruben Lisker in the 1960's. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 47:108-117.

3. Lisker,R.(1981. Estructura genetia de la poblacion Mexicana. Aspectos Medicos y Anthropologica, Mexico: Salvat.

.

---

R.Lisker, E. Ramirez, and V. Babinsky. 1996. “Genetic Structure of Autochtonous populations of Mesoamerica:Mexico,” [u]Human Biology[[/u] 68 (#3): 395-404. (properly cited)

Winters also like to play around with definitions to obscure. MESTIZO is defined as European + Indian; Nobody but Winters uses the term “mongoloid Native Americans”, which already presupposes what he intends to prove. MULATTO is defined as Black + white. Then there is African + Indian., and finally the trihybrid European + Black + Indian.

Table 2 in Lisker says

group black ... Indian… white

Paraiso 0.217... 0.474… 0.309
El Carmen 0.284… 0.432… 0.284
Veracruz 0.256 …. 0.394… 0.350
Saladero 0.302… 0.386… 0.312
Tamiahua 0.405… 0.307… 0.288

Aha! This could only happen after the arrival of the Spanish and African slaves. It is meaningless for the purposes Winters wants to use them. Also note there are more whites in Paraiso then blacks (30.9% vs 21.7%). Veracruz (35% vs 25.6%), Saladero (31.2% vs 30.2%). Black and White genetic contributions are the same in El Carmen and the only place there are more blacks is Tamiahua (40.5% vs 28.8).


Actually the more relevant part of the table is also not mentioned by Winters, i.e. not Mestizos, which by definition are already mixed with whites in Colonial Times. What we need is data on INDIAN GROUPS, Lisker Table 2 continues;


group black indian white
Huichol 0.00 0.912 0.088
Totonaco 0.00 0.854 0.146
Chontal 0.050 0.783 0.167
Chol 0.00 0.778 0.222
Zapoteco 0.00 0.741 0.259
Huasteco 0.00 0.627 0.373
Cora 0.008 0.792 0.20

In these Indian groups you get zero African contribution with the exception of the Maya Chontal group at 5% (not very significant); the Chol live in the area of the Classic Maya civilization, the Zapotec live in the area where writing was first found in Mesoamerica, the Totonac are the Indians living in Veracruz--and the better example to use rather then the Veracruz mestizo sample cited by Winters, the Huasteco are the supposedly ancestral Maya speakers just before the Mande came.. The paper points out that populations used were monolingual and identified themselves as Indian-- therefore, if there had been precolumbian African contact in the Maya area these would be the groups where it would show up. It doesn't.

Winters is playing tricks again by omitting the part of the paper he is quoting in support of his position.



Suares-Diaz, E. 2014 “Indigenous populations in Mexico: Medical anthropology in the work of Ruben Lisker in the 1960s,” [u] Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences [/u]47: 108-117


p. 114 Their area of study focused on the so-called Costa Chica in the Pacific Coast of southern Mexico, Lisker found that hemolytic anemaia was not that common in Mexican indigenous populations, but more interestingly, that the enzyme’s deficiency was correlated with distance to Cuijinicuilapa, a town in which African slaves had settled during colonial times. The farther from Cuijinicuilapa, the lower the frequency of G6PD and HbS; the village of Pochutla, for instance, showing a lower frequency than Ometepec. Using other blood markers, he calculated that in Cuijinicuilapa 56% of the genes are Negroid.


p. 114 These communities lived indifferent regions of the country, including the Northern mountains, and the east and west coast, where slave trade had taken place in the 16th century, according to Aguirre Beltrán. This time, Lisker obtained two thousand blood samples. The results confirmed the hypothesis of the Negro admixture in the west Mexican coast, in some places reaching a level of 40% of admixture. Lisker did not study the country at large. His results apply only to communities where historically we knew that slaves had settled in colonial times

Winters seems to forget that between his "1200 BC Mande" and 2015 there were many centuries where African brought as slaves lived and bred in Mexico.

---

'



.
No I haven't it is due to the slave trade that many contemprary Mexicans have African features.
 

---

Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters

Are Mestizos Jealousy of Afro-American History?

---

Mestizos by definition are people of combined European and Amerindian ancestry

Afro-Americans Americans are primarily African and on average have a smaller amount of European ancestry.
Some have American Indian, Asian and other ancestry but on average, less than the European admixture

Comparitively the average Afro-American has much less indigenous American ancestry than the average mestizo.
That is not suprising

---

---

This is an invented graph. Lisker did not use y-chromosomes he used 6GPD

quote:

---

There is a high frequency of African-Mestizo admixture ranging between 20-40% .
The admixture rate between Africans and indigenous Mexican Indians ranges between 5-50% .

References:


1. Lisker R, et al.(1996). Genetic structure of autochthonous populations of Meso-america:Mexico. Am. J. Hum Biol 68:395-404.

2. Suarez-Diaz,E. (2014) Indigenous populations in Mexico. Medical anthropology in the Work of Ruben Lisker in the 1960's. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 47:108-117.

3. Lisker,R.(1981. Estructura genetia de la poblacion Mexicana. Aspectos Medicos y Anthropologica, Mexico: Salvat.

.

---

R.Lisker, E. Ramirez, and V. Babinsky. 1996. “Genetic Structure of Autochtonous populations of Mesoamerica:Mexico,” [u]Human Biology[[/u] 68 (#3): 395-404. (properly cited)

Winters also like to play around with definitions to obscure. MESTIZO is defined as European + Indian; Nobody but Winters uses the term “mongoloid Native Americans”, which already presupposes what he intends to prove. MULATTO is defined as Black + white. Then there is African + Indian., and finally the trihybrid European + Black + Indian.

Table 2 in Lisker says

group black ... Indian… white

Paraiso 0.217... 0.474… 0.309
El Carmen 0.284… 0.432… 0.284
Veracruz 0.256 …. 0.394… 0.350
Saladero 0.302… 0.386… 0.312
Tamiahua 0.405… 0.307… 0.288

Aha! This could only happen after the arrival of the Spanish and African slaves. It is meaningless for the purposes Winters wants to use them. Also note there are more whites in Paraiso then blacks (30.9% vs 21.7%). Veracruz (35% vs 25.6%), Saladero (31.2% vs 30.2%). Black and White genetic contributions are the same in El Carmen and the only place there are more blacks is Tamiahua (40.5% vs 28.8).


Actually the more relevant part of the table is also not mentioned by Winters, i.e. not Mestizos, which by definition are already mixed with whites in Colonial Times. What we need is data on INDIAN GROUPS, Lisker Table 2 continues;


group black indian white
Huichol 0.00 0.912 0.088
Totonaco 0.00 0.854 0.146
Chontal 0.050 0.783 0.167
Chol 0.00 0.778 0.222
Zapoteco 0.00 0.741 0.259
Huasteco 0.00 0.627 0.373
Cora 0.008 0.792 0.20

In these Indian groups you get zero African contribution with the exception of the Maya Chontal group at 5% (not very significant); the Chol live in the area of the Classic Maya civilization, the Zapotec live in the area where writing was first found in Mesoamerica, the Totonac are the Indians living in Veracruz--and the better example to use rather then the Veracruz mestizo sample cited by Winters, the Huasteco are the supposedly ancestral Maya speakers just before the Mande came.. The paper points out that populations used were monolingual and identified themselves as Indian-- therefore, if there had been precolumbian African contact in the Maya area these would be the groups where it would show up. It doesn't.

Winters is playing tricks again by omitting the part of the paper he is quoting in support of his position.



Suares-Diaz, E. 2014 “Indigenous populations in Mexico: Medical anthropology in the work of Ruben Lisker in the 1960s,” [u] Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences [/u]47: 108-117


p. 114 Their area of study focused on the so-called Costa Chica in the Pacific Coast of southern Mexico, Lisker found that hemolytic anemaia was not that common in Mexican indigenous populations, but more interestingly, that the enzyme’s deficiency was correlated with distance to Cuijinicuilapa, a town in which African slaves had settled during colonial times. The farther from Cuijinicuilapa, the lower the frequency of G6PD and HbS; the village of Pochutla, for instance, showing a lower frequency than Ometepec. Using other blood markers, he calculated that in Cuijinicuilapa 56% of the genes are Negroid.


p. 114 These communities lived indifferent regions of the country, including the Northern mountains, and the east and west coast, where slave trade had taken place in the 16th century, according to Aguirre Beltrán. This time, Lisker obtained two thousand blood samples. The results confirmed the hypothesis of the Negro admixture in the west Mexican coast, in some places reaching a level of 40% of admixture. Lisker did not study the country at large. His results apply only to communities where historically we knew that slaves had settled in colonial times

Winters seems to forget that between his "1200 BC Mande" and 2015 there were many centuries where African brought as slaves lived and bred in Mexico.

---

'



.
No I haven't it is due to the slave trade that many contemprary Mexicans have African features.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters

Are Mestizos Jealousy of Afro-American History?

---

Mestizos by definition are people of combined European and Amerindian ancestry

Afro-Americans Americans are primarily African and on average have a smaller amount of European ancestry.
Some have American Indian, Asian and other ancestry but on average, less than the European admixture

Comparitively the average Afro-American has much less indigenous American ancestry than the average mestizo.
That is not suprising

---

---

This is an invented graph. Lisker did not use y-chromosomes he used 6GPD

quote:

---

There is a high frequency of African-Mestizo admixture ranging between 20-40% .
The admixture rate between Africans and indigenous Mexican Indians ranges between 5-50% .

References:


1. Lisker R, et al.(1996). Genetic structure of autochthonous populations of Meso-america:Mexico. Am. J. Hum Biol 68:395-404.

2. Suarez-Diaz,E. (2014) Indigenous populations in Mexico. Medical anthropology in the Work of Ruben Lisker in the 1960's. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 47:108-117.

3. Lisker,R.(1981. Estructura genetia de la poblacion Mexicana. Aspectos Medicos y Anthropologica, Mexico: Salvat.

.

---

R.Lisker, E. Ramirez, and V. Babinsky. 1996. “Genetic Structure of Autochtonous populations of Mesoamerica:Mexico,” [u]Human Biology[[/u] 68 (#3): 395-404. (properly cited)

Winters also like to play around with definitions to obscure. MESTIZO is defined as European + Indian; Nobody but Winters uses the term “mongoloid Native Americans”, which already presupposes what he intends to prove. MULATTO is defined as Black + white. Then there is African + Indian., and finally the trihybrid European + Black + Indian.

Table 2 in Lisker says

group black ... Indian… white

Paraiso 0.217... 0.474… 0.309
El Carmen 0.284… 0.432… 0.284
Veracruz 0.256 …. 0.394… 0.350
Saladero 0.302… 0.386… 0.312
Tamiahua 0.405… 0.307… 0.288

Aha! This could only happen after the arrival of the Spanish and African slaves. It is meaningless for the purposes Winters wants to use them. Also note there are more whites in Paraiso then blacks (30.9% vs 21.7%). Veracruz (35% vs 25.6%), Saladero (31.2% vs 30.2%). Black and White genetic contributions are the same in El Carmen and the only place there are more blacks is Tamiahua (40.5% vs 28.8).


Actually the more relevant part of the table is also not mentioned by Winters, i.e. not Mestizos, which by definition are already mixed with whites in Colonial Times. What we need is data on INDIAN GROUPS, Lisker Table 2 continues;


group black indian white
Huichol 0.00 0.912 0.088
Totonaco 0.00 0.854 0.146
Chontal 0.050 0.783 0.167
Chol 0.00 0.778 0.222
Zapoteco 0.00 0.741 0.259
Huasteco 0.00 0.627 0.373
Cora 0.008 0.792 0.20

In these Indian groups you get zero African contribution with the exception of the Maya Chontal group at 5% (not very significant); the Chol live in the area of the Classic Maya civilization, the Zapotec live in the area where writing was first found in Mesoamerica, the Totonac are the Indians living in Veracruz--and the better example to use rather then the Veracruz mestizo sample cited by Winters, the Huasteco are the supposedly ancestral Maya speakers just before the Mande came.. The paper points out that populations used were monolingual and identified themselves as Indian-- therefore, if there had been precolumbian African contact in the Maya area these would be the groups where it would show up. It doesn't.

Winters is playing tricks again by omitting the part of the paper he is quoting in support of his position.



Suares-Diaz, E. 2014 “Indigenous populations in Mexico: Medical anthropology in the work of Ruben Lisker in the 1960s,” [u] Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences [/u]47: 108-117


p. 114 Their area of study focused on the so-called Costa Chica in the Pacific Coast of southern Mexico, Lisker found that hemolytic anemaia was not that common in Mexican indigenous populations, but more interestingly, that the enzyme’s deficiency was correlated with distance to Cuijinicuilapa, a town in which African slaves had settled during colonial times. The farther from Cuijinicuilapa, the lower the frequency of G6PD and HbS; the village of Pochutla, for instance, showing a lower frequency than Ometepec. Using other blood markers, he calculated that in Cuijinicuilapa 56% of the genes are Negroid.


p. 114 These communities lived indifferent regions of the country, including the Northern mountains, and the east and west coast, where slave trade had taken place in the 16th century, according to Aguirre Beltrán. This time, Lisker obtained two thousand blood samples. The results confirmed the hypothesis of the Negro admixture in the west Mexican coast, in some places reaching a level of 40% of admixture. Lisker did not study the country at large. His results apply only to communities where historically we knew that slaves had settled in colonial times

Winters seems to forget that between his "1200 BC Mande" and 2015 there were many centuries where African brought as slaves lived and bred in Mexico.

---

'



.
No I haven't it is due to the slave trade that many contemprary Mexicans have African features.

---

Notice, that instead of dealing with his misstatements about Lisker, we get distracting spam.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters

Are Mestizos Jealousy of Afro-American History?

---

Mestizos by definition are people of combined European and Amerindian ancestry

Afro-Americans Americans are primarily African and on average have a smaller amount of European ancestry.
Some have American Indian, Asian and other ancestry but on average, less than the European admixture

Comparitively the average Afro-American has much less indigenous American ancestry than the average mestizo.
That is not suprising

---

---

This is an invented graph. Lisker did not use y-chromosomes he used 6GPD

quote:

---

There is a high frequency of African-Mestizo admixture ranging between 20-40% .
The admixture rate between Africans and indigenous Mexican Indians ranges between 5-50% .

References:


1. Lisker R, et al.(1996). Genetic structure of autochthonous populations of Meso-america:Mexico. Am. J. Hum Biol 68:395-404.

2. Suarez-Diaz,E. (2014) Indigenous populations in Mexico. Medical anthropology in the Work of Ruben Lisker in the 1960's. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 47:108-117.

3. Lisker,R.(1981. Estructura genetia de la poblacion Mexicana. Aspectos Medicos y Anthropologica, Mexico: Salvat.

.

---

R.Lisker, E. Ramirez, and V. Babinsky. 1996. “Genetic Structure of Autochtonous populations of Mesoamerica:Mexico,” [u]Human Biology[[/u] 68 (#3): 395-404. (properly cited)

Winters also like to play around with definitions to obscure. MESTIZO is defined as European + Indian; Nobody but Winters uses the term “mongoloid Native Americans”, which already presupposes what he intends to prove. MULATTO is defined as Black + white. Then there is African + Indian., and finally the trihybrid European + Black + Indian.

Table 2 in Lisker says

group black ... Indian… white

Paraiso 0.217... 0.474… 0.309
El Carmen 0.284… 0.432… 0.284
Veracruz 0.256 …. 0.394… 0.350
Saladero 0.302… 0.386… 0.312
Tamiahua 0.405… 0.307… 0.288

Aha! This could only happen after the arrival of the Spanish and African slaves. It is meaningless for the purposes Winters wants to use them. Also note there are more whites in Paraiso then blacks (30.9% vs 21.7%). Veracruz (35% vs 25.6%), Saladero (31.2% vs 30.2%). Black and White genetic contributions are the same in El Carmen and the only place there are more blacks is Tamiahua (40.5% vs 28.8).


Actually the more relevant part of the table is also not mentioned by Winters, i.e. not Mestizos, which by definition are already mixed with whites in Colonial Times. What we need is data on INDIAN GROUPS, Lisker Table 2 continues;


group black indian white
Huichol 0.00 0.912 0.088
Totonaco 0.00 0.854 0.146
Chontal 0.050 0.783 0.167
Chol 0.00 0.778 0.222
Zapoteco 0.00 0.741 0.259
Huasteco 0.00 0.627 0.373
Cora 0.008 0.792 0.20

In these Indian groups you get zero African contribution with the exception of the Maya Chontal group at 5% (not very significant); the Chol live in the area of the Classic Maya civilization, the Zapotec live in the area where writing was first found in Mesoamerica, the Totonac are the Indians living in Veracruz--and the better example to use rather then the Veracruz mestizo sample cited by Winters, the Huasteco are the supposedly ancestral Maya speakers just before the Mande came.. The paper points out that populations used were monolingual and identified themselves as Indian-- therefore, if there had been precolumbian African contact in the Maya area these would be the groups where it would show up. It doesn't.

Winters is playing tricks again by omitting the part of the paper he is quoting in support of his position.



Suares-Diaz, E. 2014 “Indigenous populations in Mexico: Medical anthropology in the work of Ruben Lisker in the 1960s,” [u] Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences [/u]47: 108-117


p. 114 Their area of study focused on the so-called Costa Chica in the Pacific Coast of southern Mexico, Lisker found that hemolytic anemaia was not that common in Mexican indigenous populations, but more interestingly, that the enzyme’s deficiency was correlated with distance to Cuijinicuilapa, a town in which African slaves had settled during colonial times. The farther from Cuijinicuilapa, the lower the frequency of G6PD and HbS; the village of Pochutla, for instance, showing a lower frequency than Ometepec. Using other blood markers, he calculated that in Cuijinicuilapa 56% of the genes are Negroid.


p. 114 These communities lived indifferent regions of the country, including the Northern mountains, and the east and west coast, where slave trade had taken place in the 16th century, according to Aguirre Beltrán. This time, Lisker obtained two thousand blood samples. The results confirmed the hypothesis of the Negro admixture in the west Mexican coast, in some places reaching a level of 40% of admixture. Lisker did not study the country at large. His results apply only to communities where historically we knew that slaves had settled in colonial times

Winters seems to forget that between his "1200 BC Mande" and 2015 there were many centuries where African brought as slaves lived and bred in Mexico.

---

'



.
No I haven't it is due to the slave trade that many contemprary Mexicans have African features.

---

. made no mistakes on Lisker. The article is on-line so anyone interested can read the article themselves.Lisker has written other articles on the same subject and note the African admixture with Mexicans. You are a liar and a fraud.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:


Stupid Euronut! These two were descendents of the Aztecs. They look just like the original sttlers of Mexico.



Look at the nose and hair of the Aztec couple and compare it to the Aztecs you can clearly see the common ancestry of these people. Stop posting pictures of people who lived in the Aztec empire instead of the true Aztecs depicted below.

.





History is never neutral, as a result it is the highest point of propaganda. WE have been lied too by the Academe. In school you learn that the Native Americans were all mongoloid people. But this is false. There were Black Native Americans. This was especially true of the Aztecs. Archaeological evidence, Mayan and Spanish descriptions of the Aztec, and pictorial evidence from the codexes indicate they were Black.






.
The Spanish described the Aztec as follows: “The people of this land are well made, rather tall than short. They are swarthy as leopards (see below), of good manners and gestures, for the greater part very skillful, robust, and tireless, and at the same time the most moderate men known. They are very warlike and face death with the greatest resolution” See: Daily Life of the Aztecs – Scribd, www.scribd.com/doc/116295428/Daily-Life-of-the-Aztecs
As you can see it was the Spanish who described the Aztecs as “swarthy” or black like leopards and jaguars.

The African or negro character of the Aztecs is supported by Mexican statements about the Aztecs and the codexes. The Maya called the Aztecs xilaan “curly or frizzy hair”, which is characteristic of Sub-Saharan Africans. In addition we find Black/Negro/African people in the Mexican codexes including Codex Telleriano and Codex Mendoza.
In addition to the textual evidence of Blacks in Mexico we also iconographic evidence from Mayan sub-pyramids of Blacks. For example, there are pictures of black scientists and chief from Xultun pyramid.

The archaeological, textual, and linguistic evidence make it clear the Aztecs were probably Black.The description of the Aztecs by the Spanish and Maya as black and frizzy haired match the pictures of the last Aztecs.

---

 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Stupid Euronut! These two were descendents of the Aztecs. They look just like the original sttlers of Mexico.



Look at the nose and hair of the Aztec couple and compare it to the Aztecs you can clearly see the common ancestry of these people. Stop posting pictures of people who lived in the Aztec empire instead of the true Aztecs depicted below.

.





History is never neutral, as a result it is the highest point of propaganda. WE have been lied too by the Academe. In school you learn that the Native Americans were all mongoloid people. But this is false. There were Black Native Americans. This was especially true of the Aztecs. Archaeological evidence, Mayan and Spanish descriptions of the Aztec, and pictorial evidence from the codexes indicate they were Black.






.
The Spanish described the Aztec as follows: “The people of this land are well made, rather tall than short. They are swarthy as leopards (see below), of good manners and gestures, for the greater part very skillful, robust, and tireless, and at the same time the most moderate men known. They are very warlike and face death with the greatest resolution” See: Daily Life of the Aztecs – Scribd, www.scribd.com/doc/116295428/Daily-Life-of-the-Aztecs
As you can see it was the Spanish who described the Aztecs as “swarthy” or black like leopards and jaguars.

The African or negro character of the Aztecs is supported by Mexican statements about the Aztecs and the codexes. The Maya called the Aztecs xilaan “curly or frizzy hair”, which is characteristic of Sub-Saharan Africans. In addition we find Black/Negro/African people in the Mexican codexes including Codex Telleriano and Codex Mendoza.
In addition to the textual evidence of Blacks in Mexico we also iconographic evidence from Mayan sub-pyramids of Blacks. For example, there are pictures of black scientists and chief from Xultun pyramid.

The archaeological, textual, and linguistic evidence make it clear the Aztecs were probably Black.The description of the Aztecs by the Spanish and Maya as black and frizzy haired match the pictures of the last Aztecs.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[QB] Stupid Euronut! These two were descendents of the Aztecs. They look just like the original sttlers of Mexico.

Look at the nose and hair of the Aztec couple and compare it to the Aztecs you can clearly see the common ancestry of these people.

---

^ Maximo and Bartola






Maximo at a younger age


^^^ Looks nothing at all like an African. These are Central American people, mentally retarded with a sever birth defect called Microcephaly. Clyde and Mike have done zero research on these people, don't even no their names. They don't even have afros. Their hair is frizzed up to make them look exotic as did P.T. Barnum with his other human "exhibits" Circassian "moss-haired girls". We can clearly from the child aged photo of Massimo he had wavy straight hair.
Even if they had true curly hair they did not look at all like Africans. Yall is stupid






^ As we see here everybody here, dark or lighter has hair that is hanging down no indication that it is afro hair.
Also note the lower two rows of figures. their bodies are dark but their faces are light !!!
That is because painted their bodies dark, you silly fools.
We can also look at other codex pictures where the aggressor and victim are both the lighter color







.

an African man

^^^ Were the Spanish stunned when they first saw the Aztecs and reported they looked just like Africans ???
No they did not because they didn't look just like Africans, they looked like Central Americans




^^^ See this guy? He is quite swarthy. He would not be mistaken for Asian , African or European

He looks like a Central American, they have their own distinctive looks that come from living there for thousands of years

But Clyde and Mike are trying to rob Peter to pay Paul.

It's the ongoing identity crisis with black people.
Imagining you are not African is an art form now. You let your imagination run wild and people love it.




^^ Look at this. What proud Afrocentric would call their book "We are not just Africans" ???

Look at the wording "just Africans" as if being African by itself is not enough, not something to be proud of, lacking in some way.

Would Chinese Americans or Mexican Americans who might have some admixture go around writing books called "We are not just Chinese" ? or "We are not just Mexicans"

Only Black people in America do that. Why?
It's called P.T.S.S.
“Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome"
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
The Spanish described the Aztec as follows: “The people of this land are well made, rather tall than short. They are swarthy as leopards (see below), of good manners and gestures, for the greater part very skillful, robust, and tireless, and at the same time the most moderate men known. They are very warlike and face death with the greatest resolution” See: Daily Life of the Aztecs – Scribd, www.scribd.com/doc/116295428/Daily-Life-of-the-Aztecs

As you can see it was the Spanish who described the Aztecs as “swarthy” or black like leopards and jaguars.

The African or negro character of the Aztecs is supported by Mexican statements about the Aztecs and the codexes. The Maya called the Aztecs xilaan “curly or frizzy hair”, which is characteristic of many Afro-Americans.


lioness Stupid Euronut. Maximo looks just like other Aztec Black Native Americans with wavy or frizzed hair.



Wavy is the Definition of Frizzy hair .

Some Africans have wavy hair, but Wavy hair was common to Aztec Afro-Americans as depicted in the Aztec codex provided earlier.



Learn more about Black Native Americans in my recent book.




Stop spreading your Euronut lies.

.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Negro means Black-Stupid

lioness Stupid Euronut. Maximo looks just like other Aztec Black Native Americans with wavy or frizzed hair.

---

Clyde, normal people don't think Maximo looks Black or Negro have you lost your mind?

It's better to admit you are mistaken at this point becuase if you keep going people are going to think DR. Clyde Winters doesn't have the foggiest idea of what a Black person looks like
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
lioness is not a normal person. She can not tell the difference between an Afro-American and an American Indian.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

No they did not report that because they didn't look just like Africans,
-they looked like Central Americans




^^^ See this guy? He is quite swarthy. He would not be mistaken for Asian , African or European

He looks like a Central American, they have their own distinctive looks that come from living there for thousands of years

But Clyde and Mike are trying to rob Peter to pay Paul.

It's the ongoing identity crisis with black people.
Imagining you are not African is an art form now. You let your imagination run wild and people love it.




^^ Look at this. What proud Afrocentric would call their book "We are not just Africans" ???

Look at the wording "just Africans" as if being African by itself is not enough, not something to be proud of, lacking in some way.

Would Chinese Americans or Mexican Americans who might have some admixture go around writing books called "We are not just Chinese" ? or "We are not just Mexicans"

Only Black people in America do that. Why?
It's called P.T.S.S.
“Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome"

---

.


.

lioness stop spreading Eurocentric lies! This guy is a Central American mongoloid American Indian--not a Black Native American like the Aztecs and Maximo.

.



.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
A negro or Black is a person with:

1) Direct African ancestry

2) Brown to yellow complexion.

3) Long limbs

4) shape of the head and face varies

5) flat to semi pointed nose ( traditionally some Negro/Black people like to pinch the noses of their children )with dark skin


Here is a picture of several Wolof engaged in a conversation. Note the individuals in the picture the person in the center facing you appears to have a flat nose; whereas the person facing the center person has a nose which appears to be semi-pointed.This highlights the various nose types found among negroes.

6) curly to straight hair

7) round to slanted eyes depending on the Negro group


Note the varying shape of the eyes evident in these negroes.

8) thick of thin lips

Some people believe that Filipino and other Asian people can be classified as Negroes because of their dark color. But a careful examination of the two clearly demonstrates differences between both group in facial features eventhough the shape of the eye may be the same.
Tanzanian



Filipino



Look at differences in the form of the head, forehead and mouth. Note both have flat noses but they are clearly different in how they are established.

Both children are handsome and well proportioned . Note also the color both are brown but the African has a more richer brown complexion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Negro means Black-Stupid

lioness Stupid Euronut. Maximo looks just like other Aztec Black Native Americans with wavy or frizzed hair.

---

Clyde, normal people don't think Maximo looks Black or Negro have you lost your mind?

It's better to admit you are mistaken at this point becuase if you keep going people are going to think DR. Clyde Winters doesn't have the foggiest idea of what a Black person looks like

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
Interesting but how would you describe this batek lady,I can't post pictures that well.
http://68.media.tumblr.com/2a5542f6b3bfac098fbde3ef10837099/tumblr_n0jio5OGKo1t0u74to1_1280.jpg

---

Wut Up Thereal,

Assisting you on your picture



Peace
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


Clyde who looks more similar to A

B or C ?

Do we need to go on?
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


Clyde who looks more similar to A

B or C ?

Do we need to go on?

---

Stupid Euronut all Black people don't look alike except too you racist.


I choose D.





Maximo and his Aztec sister looks just like the ancient Cherla Afro-American tribe of Mexico.



.
 

---

Posted by jantavanta (Member # 20328) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kdolo:
....could be....

Mestizos and mestizo oriented cultures tend to vigourously protect and advocate White Supremacy....as vigoursly as Whites...

They are usually quite happy being subordinate to Whites and see it as the most natural thing in the World.

Nothing disturbs them more than to see the "darkies" getting out of line...acting up...being "arrogante" as they say in Spanish.

They entire Spanish new world culture is based on this concept

---

Well said kdolo:

Often times the "near" (near White) mulatto is the Black mans greatest enemy. He values his position nearest the White man, and will defend that position vigorously.

Intelligent Blacks laugh at both of them, and I think intelligent White women do too - especially in the west.

However, as usual, Africans don't get the joke.

---

Some of we Africans get the joke, because we have received Special Knowledge of Self. Therefore, we can value what is discussed here, without having had a long-term direct interaction with White People in their own country.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
MAXIMO


Maximo as a child

Clyde let's finish this plain and single.
Is the above person Negroid, yes or no ?
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Clyde - Please note that by engaging with lioness, you gave he/her opening and opportunity to completely obfuscate the threads meaning. So that now, rather than being about Mestizos and Blacks, it is about people with microcephaly.
 

---

Posted by Diebythesword (Member # 22355) on :
 
Bernardo Ortiz de Montellano RIP

Sad to learn this guy died. He published some good papers debunking Clyde's Afrolunacy.

https://sacnas.org/news/ortiz-de-montellano
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diebythesword:
Bernardo Ortiz de Montellano RIP

Sad to learn this guy died. He published some good papers debunking Clyde's Afrolunacy.

https://sacnas.org/news/ortiz-de-montellano

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

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

---

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





^^ For instance are both of these people black?

Are they both Native Americans?

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

Stop the nonsense, thanks

---

They both dark but only one is called Black.

The South american Indian is a mongoloid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Clyde, there is no proof that the black Native Americans were African migrants straight from Africa. Black people are indigenous to all parts of the planet because all humans originate with Africans and most human populations were in tropical environments after leaving Africa thereby retaining their dark skin. That does not make those populations "African". All the evidence points to the Americas being settled by various waves of Asians starting with "aboriginal" dark skinned Asians, similar to populations in India, Australia and the Pacific.

---

.



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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

.



.

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

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


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

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

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
People THINK

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

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

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

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

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

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

Good Job Clyde
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

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

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

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

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

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

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

Good Job Clyde

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

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

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

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

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

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

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

Good Job Clyde

---

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

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

But they don't.

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

---

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

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


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



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

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

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

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

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

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

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

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

Good Job Clyde

---

This is what native Brazilians look like


Yanomami Indians (except second from left)

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




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

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

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

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


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






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


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

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

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

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

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

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

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

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

Good Job Clyde

---

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

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

But they don't.

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

---

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

DNA GETS THE RESULTS THE SCIENTIST DESIRE NOT THE TRUTH

LOOK AT THE GARIFUNA PEOPLE FOR EXAMPLE.

Also Read this

Doug M

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

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

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


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


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



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

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

Scientist are liars
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

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

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

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

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

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

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

Good Job Clyde

---

This is what native Brazilians look like


Yanomami Indians (except second from left)

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




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

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

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

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


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






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


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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
KING send a message to Black Women of Brazil saying that slavery in Brazil was a hoax, see if they agree. Then get back to me

You can also look in this database of shipping records:


http://slavevoyages.org/

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Akachi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

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

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

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

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

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

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

Good Job Clyde

---

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

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

But they don't.

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

---

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

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


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



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

---

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

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



DNA is showing the same correspondence.




Tonga step pyramid


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




Pyramid of Mauritius


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

• Common Terms:
  
  English Manding Melanesian Polynesian
  
  arrow bye,bya fana,pane fana,pana
  
  Father baba babi papa
  
  Man tye ta taga-ta
  
  head ku tequ-qa tuku-noa
  
  pot daga taga taga
  
  vase bara pora,bora bora-bora
  
  fish yege ige, ika ika
  
  ox, cattle konga,gunga kede kuda

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

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".

---

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

---

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

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


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




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

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

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

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

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

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

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

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

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

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

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

Good Job Clyde

---

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

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

But they don't.

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

---

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

DNA GETS THE RESULTS THE SCIENTIST DESIRE NOT THE TRUTH

LOOK AT THE GARIFUNA PEOPLE FOR EXAMPLE.

Also Read this

Doug M

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

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

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


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


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



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

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

Scientist are liars

---

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

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



 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

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

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

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

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

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

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

Good Job Clyde

---

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

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

But they don't.

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

---

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

DNA GETS THE RESULTS THE SCIENTIST DESIRE NOT THE TRUTH

LOOK AT THE GARIFUNA PEOPLE FOR EXAMPLE.

Also Read this

Doug M

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

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

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


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


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



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

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

Scientist are liars

---

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

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
White supremacy perpetrated the hoax of slavery. In fact most Black in America are not African nor are Afro Brazilians "Afro"
They are by and large Black Native Americans, not Africans, so forget that Africa motherland stuff, our people have not been there since 100,000 years

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
White supremacy perpetrated the hoax of slavery. In fact most Black in America are not African nor are Afro Brazilians "Afro"
They are by and large Black Native Americans, not Africans, so forget that Africa motherland stuff, our people have not been there since 100,000 years

---

clap clap clap

good job Lioness

thats the fact.

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

POST THE FACTS ABOUT SLAVERY IN THE AMERICAS.

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

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


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

What people believe in strongly does not mean its true.


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




ITS CALLED FANTASY

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
White supremacy perpetrated the hoax of slavery. In fact most Black in America are not African nor are Afro Brazilians "Afro"
They are by and large Black Native Americans, not Africans, so forget that Africa motherland stuff, our people have not been there since 100,000 years

---

clap clap clap

good job Lioness

thats the fact.

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

POST THE FACTS ABOUT SLAVERY IN THE AMERICAS.

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

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


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

What people believe in strongly does not mean its true.


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




ITS CALLED FANTASY

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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


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

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Akachi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

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

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

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

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

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

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

Good Job Clyde

---

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

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

But they don't.

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

---

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

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


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



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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Akachi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

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

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

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

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

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

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

Good Job Clyde

---

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

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

But they don't.

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

---

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

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


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



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

---

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

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

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

---

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




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

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Akachi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

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

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

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

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

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

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

Good Job Clyde

---

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

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

But they don't.

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

---

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

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


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



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

---

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

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

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

---

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




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

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:Sickle cell is not DNA. Surely you aren't claiming that the DNA of people in New Guinea is the same as the DNA of people in Africa.

---

quote:

---

The problem you have is that the environment determines phenotype.

---

I've frequently heard some people attempt to explain the robust features of "Niger-Congo" speakers as being the result of humidity in the tropics.




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

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



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

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

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Akachi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

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

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

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

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

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

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

Good Job Clyde

---

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

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

But they don't.

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

---

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

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


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



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

---

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

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

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

---

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




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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308391208_A_genomic_history_of_Aboriginal_Australia

---

You keep talking about the Australians, I am talking about the Melanesians. These are two different populations. It is the Melanesian who came recently into the Pacific .

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

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

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




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


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


.



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


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


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

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

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


Reference:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Let's look at the evolution of homo sapiens. Note that the forehead of the earliest humans were larger than contemporary Blacks.



The Eves were also African




The Aurignacian people who replaced the Neanderthal looked like this


Below is the ancestor of Neanderthals and Australians.



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

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

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




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





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



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


Fijians




Australians




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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Akachi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:Sickle cell is not DNA. Surely you aren't claiming that the DNA of people in New Guinea is the same as the DNA of people in Africa.

---

That is a BLOOD LINEAGE... However you want to slice it that is directly tied to a core origin with Niger-Congo speakers now in West, South and Central Africa. This common blood lineage is proof that the relationship between Africans and Southeast Asians is not superficial. Once again this BLOOD LINEAGE is only passed from parent to offspring..., and not some sporadic "tropical" phenomena. Coupled with the fact that these people state that they actually came from Africa it's indisputable proof of a more recent expansion of those particular Africoid types.

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

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

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

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

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

quote:

---

The problem you have is that the environment determines phenotype.

---

I've frequently heard some people attempt to explain the robust features of "Niger-Congo" speakers as being the result of humidity in the tropics.




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

---

"the tropics" is an environmental phenomenon centered around the equator and the "tropic of Cancer". Humans originated in a tropical environment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropics

quote:

---

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



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

---

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

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

And the DNA supports the ancient migration:

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

---

Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 

quote:

---

ITS CALLED FANTASY

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Akachi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

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

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

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

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

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

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

Good Job Clyde

---

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

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

But they don't.

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

---

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

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


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



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

---

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

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

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

---

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




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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308391208_A_genomic_history_of_Aboriginal_Australia

---

You keep talking about the Australians, I am talking about the Melanesians. These are two different populations. It is the Melanesian who came recently into the Pacific .

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

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

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




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


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


.



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


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


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

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

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


Reference:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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


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

M haplogroups in Melanesia:


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

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

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

quote:

---

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

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

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

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Akachi:

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



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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
instead of admitting that Africans carried all of these genes first.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Akachi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

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

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

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

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

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

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

Good Job Clyde

---

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

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

But they don't.

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

---

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

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


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



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

---

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

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



DNA is showing the same correspondence.




Tonga step pyramid


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




Pyramid of Mauritius


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

• Common Terms:
  
  English Manding Melanesian Polynesian
  
  arrow bye,bya fana,pane fana,pana
  
  Father baba babi papa
  
  Man tye ta taga-ta
  
  head ku tequ-qa tuku-noa
  
  pot daga taga taga
  
  vase bara pora,bora bora-bora
  
  fish yege ige, ika ika
  
  ox, cattle konga,gunga kede kuda

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

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

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

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

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


Recently Williams John Page (1988) discussed the Lakato Hypothesis. The Lakato Hypothesis stated simply implies that the Melanesian people of Fiji were carried to the Pacific Islands by Indonesian maritime merchants after they had colonized parts of East and central Africa. In these Indonesian centers, Page (1988) believes that the Africans "gravitated into the Indonesian inspired trade". Page (1988) wrote that :

code:

---

"It is further suggested that the Lakato colonies in
Africa were the principal contributors to the earliest
settlements of Malagasy and responsible for the traces
of Indonesian influence in Africa which have endured into
modern times, as identified by previous investigators".

---

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

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

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

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

code:

---

FPN English Manding
koro hill kuru
koro village so-koro
wai-ni water of ba-ni 'course
of water' 
vatu stone bete
na the ni

---

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

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

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

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


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




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

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

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

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

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

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

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

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

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

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

Good Job Clyde

---

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

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

But they don't.

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

---

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

DNA GETS THE RESULTS THE SCIENTIST DESIRE NOT THE TRUTH

LOOK AT THE GARIFUNA PEOPLE FOR EXAMPLE.

Also Read this

Doug M

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

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

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


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


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



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

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

Scientist are liars

---

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

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Akachi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

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

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

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

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

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

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

Good Job Clyde

---

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

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

But they don't.

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

---

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

DNA GETS THE RESULTS THE SCIENTIST DESIRE NOT THE TRUTH

LOOK AT THE GARIFUNA PEOPLE FOR EXAMPLE.

Also Read this

Doug M

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

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

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


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


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



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

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

Scientist are liars

---

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

That is false. Period.

There is mounds of evidence and facts proving this.

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

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

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

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

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


 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Akachi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

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

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

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

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

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

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

Good Job Clyde

---

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

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

But they don't.

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

---

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

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

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


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

---

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

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

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

---

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




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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308391208_A_genomic_history_of_Aboriginal_Australia

---

You keep talking about the Australians, I am talking about the Melanesians. These are two different populations. It is the Melanesian who came recently into the Pacific .

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

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

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




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


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


.



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


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


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

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

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


Reference:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

quote:

---

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

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

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

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

---

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2015/07/22/discovery-change-view-human-history/

---

The Mixe are also related to Africans. Haplogroup A found among Mixe and Mixtecs .The Mande speakers carry mtDNA haplogroup A, and is also a substratum language of Mixe.

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

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

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


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




Tonga step pyramid



Pyramid of Mauritius


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

• Common Terms:
  
  English Manding Melanesian Polynesian
  
  arrow bye,bya fana,pane fana,pana
  
  Father baba babi papa
  
  Man tye ta taga-ta
  
  head ku tequ-qa tuku-noa
  
  pot daga taga taga
  
  vase bara pora,bora bora-bora
  
  fish yege ige, ika ika
  
  ox, cattle konga,gunga kede kuda

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

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".

---

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

---

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

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


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




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

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

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

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



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

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Akachi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
People THINK

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

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

What do Native Americans called Haitians look like???

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

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

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

Good Job Clyde

---

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

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

But they don't.

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

---

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

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

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


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

---

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

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

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

---

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




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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308391208_A_genomic_history_of_Aboriginal_Australia

---

You keep talking about the Australians, I am talking about the Melanesians. These are two different populations. It is the Melanesian who came recently into the Pacific .

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

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

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




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


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


.



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


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


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

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

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


Reference:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

quote:

---

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

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

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

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

---

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2015/07/22/discovery-change-view-human-history/

---

The Mixe are also related to Africans. Haplogroup A found among Mixe and Mixtecs .The Mande speakers carry mtDNA haplogroup A, and is also a substratum language of Mixe.

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

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

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


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




Tonga step pyramid



Pyramid of Mauritius


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

• Common Terms:
  
  English Manding Melanesian Polynesian
  
  arrow bye,bya fana,pane fana,pana
  
  Father baba babi papa
  
  Man tye ta taga-ta
  
  head ku tequ-qa tuku-noa
  
  pot daga taga taga
  
  vase bara pora,bora bora-bora
  
  fish yege ige, ika ika
  
  ox, cattle konga,gunga kede kuda

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

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

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

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

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


Recently Williams John Page (1988) discussed the Lakato Hypothesis. The Lakato Hypothesis stated simply implies that the Melanesian people of Fiji were carried to the Pacific Islands by Indonesian maritime merchants after they had colonized parts of East and central Africa. In these Indonesian centers, Page (1988) believes that the Africans "gravitated into the Indonesian inspired trade". Page (1988) wrote that :

code:

---

"It is further suggested that the Lakato colonies in
Africa were the principal contributors to the earliest
settlements of Malagasy and responsible for the traces
of Indonesian influence in Africa which have endured into
modern times, as identified by previous investigators".

---

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

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

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

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

code:

---

FPN English Manding
koro hill kuru
koro village so-koro
wai-ni water of ba-ni 'course
of water' 
vatu stone bete
na the ni

---

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

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

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

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


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




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

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

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

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



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

---

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

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

Not to mention which Africans look like this:

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

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

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

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

Not to mention which Africans look like this:

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

---

I have also presented DNA evidence linking Melenesians and Africans.



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

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

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

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

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

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

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

Not to mention which Africans look like this:

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

---

I have also presented DNA evidence linking Melenesians and Africans.



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

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

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

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
I cant even find any articles by "Cordeaux et al". [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

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

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


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

---

I have also presented DNA evidence linking Melenesians and Africans.



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

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

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

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

---

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

Come on man.

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

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

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

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

---

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

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



Figure 2: Cordaux

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

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

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

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

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


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

M haplogroups in Melanesia:

---

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





.
 

---

Posted by Akachi (Member # 21711) on :
 

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Akachi:
don't subscribe to the bullshit notion of climate affecting skin color. I don't subscribe to the theory that limb proportions indicate skin color. To me that is an agent argument to hide to plain fact that Caucasians are GENETICALLY RECESSIVE, and thus climate has NO AFFECT on their skin, HAIR, and EYE colors.

---

Kim Jong-Un, leader of Korea

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

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


Kim Jong-Un, leader of Korea

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

---

As is typical with lioness, the thinking is convoluted.

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

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





Korean prisoners on board an American ship, June 1871.


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


South Korea’s elderly




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

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

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

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

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

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:


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

---

.


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

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


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

M haplogroups in Melanesia:

---

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





.

---

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



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

quote:

---

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

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

Richard Cordaux and Mark Stoneking


________________________________________

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


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

Mitochondrial DNA analysis reveals diverse histories of tribal populations from India

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Akachi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:Basically you are saying that the black people in tropical environments around the world are black because they recently came from Africa.

---

I don't subscribe to the bullshit notion of climate affecting skin color. I don't subscribe to the theory that limb proportions indicate skin color. To me that is an agent argument to hide to plain fact that Caucasians are GENETICALLY RECESSIVE, and thus climate has NO AFFECT on their skin, HAIR, and EYE colors.

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

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

quote:

---

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

---

Dr. Clyde Winters has pointed out several times on this page that your statement is bullshit.



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

quote:

---

And I also understand that black populations have also existed outside tropical areas up until relatively recently (last 10,000 years) as a result of migration from tropical environments followed by adaptation to low UV Northern environments. The science and facts back this up.

---

Now what you spouted is bullshit! I specified the Niger-Congo populations who are identified anthropologically traditionally as the "true Negroid" populations of Africa have been outside of tropical environments for over 30,000. They did not move into tropical Africa as a whole (Manding-NigerCongo speakers were in Saharan Dhar Tichitt - ancient "Ghana") until after the 6th century B.C.E. during the Late Dynastic period when Kemets population ceased to be Negroid and great biological change in the African nation (as has been consistently noted by anthropological studies) had taken place.

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




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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Akachi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:Basically you are saying that the black people in tropical environments around the world are black because they recently came from Africa.

---

I don't subscribe to the bullshit notion of climate affecting skin color. I don't subscribe to the theory that limb proportions indicate skin color. To me that is an agent argument to hide to plain fact that Caucasians are GENETICALLY RECESSIVE, and thus climate has NO AFFECT on their skin, HAIR, and EYE colors.

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

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

quote:

---

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

---

Dr. Clyde Winters has pointed out several times on this page that your statement is bullshit.



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

quote:

---

And I also understand that black populations have also existed outside tropical areas up until relatively recently (last 10,000 years) as a result of migration from tropical environments followed by adaptation to low UV Northern environments. The science and facts back this up.

---

Now what you spouted is bullshit! I specified the Niger-Congo populations who are identified anthropologically traditionally as the "true Negroid" populations of Africa have been outside of tropical environments for over 30,000. They did not move into tropical Africa as a whole (Manding-NigerCongo speakers were in Saharan Dhar Tichitt - ancient "Ghana") until after the 6th century B.C.E. during the Late Dynastic period when Kemets population ceased to be Negroid and great biological change in the African nation (as has been consistently noted by anthropological studies) had taken place.

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




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

---

Yeah. So the fact that all these black folks you claim are recent African migrants live in tropical areas but that has nothing to do with it. Because if what you were saying is true then black folks would be everywhere on the planet and "evil genetic recessive white mutants" as you call them would only be in caves. But they aren't. They live in Northern Latitudes as would be expected based on adaptation to Northern Climates and the black folks live in Tropical climates thus retaining their original tropical adaptation like their ancient African ancestors.

Either way, the idea that somebody has to buy into some absurd convoluted explanation for something that is blatantly obvious and straight forward is the issue. Don't try to turn this into a 'pro black' issue. Nobody has to buy into what you are selling to get your 'pro black' stamp of approval. That isn't even really 'pro black'.

Heck, even folks like John Henrik Clark pointed out that black people are people of the Sun....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb]

Kim Jong-Un, leader of Korea

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

---

As is typical with lioness, the thinking is convoluted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:


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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
DougM

Black People are found throughout the world. Black people are found in North America.

DougM stop trying to win an argument, and actually listen to what People are telling you. Stop the ego, don't end up like lioness

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
DougM

Black People are found throughout the world. Black people are found in North America.

DougM stop trying to win an argument, and actually listen to what People are telling you. Stop the ego, don't end up like lioness

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Akachi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:Basically you are saying that the black people in tropical environments around the world are black because they recently came from Africa.

---

I don't subscribe to the bullshit notion of climate affecting skin color. I don't subscribe to the theory that limb proportions indicate skin color. To me that is an agent argument to hide to plain fact that Caucasians are GENETICALLY RECESSIVE, and thus climate has NO AFFECT on their skin, HAIR, and EYE colors.

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

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

quote:

---

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

---

Dr. Clyde Winters has pointed out several times on this page that your statement is bullshit.



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

quote:

---

And I also understand that black populations have also existed outside tropical areas up until relatively recently (last 10,000 years) as a result of migration from tropical environments followed by adaptation to low UV Northern environments. The science and facts back this up.

---

Now what you spouted is bullshit! I specified the Niger-Congo populations who are identified anthropologically traditionally as the "true Negroid" populations of Africa have been outside of tropical environments for over 30,000. They did not move into tropical Africa as a whole (Manding-NigerCongo speakers were in Saharan Dhar Tichitt - ancient "Ghana") until after the 6th century B.C.E. during the Late Dynastic period when Kemets population ceased to be Negroid and great biological change in the African nation (as has been consistently noted by anthropological studies) had taken place.

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




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

---

Yeah. So the fact that all these black folks you claim are recent African migrants live in tropical areas but that has nothing to do with it. Because if what you were saying is true then black folks would be everywhere on the planet and "evil genetic recessive white mutants" as you call them would only be in caves. But they aren't. They live in Northern Latitudes as would be expected based on adaptation to Northern Climates and the black folks live in Tropical climates thus retaining their original tropical adaptation like their ancient African ancestors.

Either way, the idea that somebody has to buy into some absurd convoluted explanation for something that is blatantly obvious and straight forward is the issue. Don't try to turn this into a 'pro black' issue. Nobody has to buy into what you are selling to get your 'pro black' stamp of approval. That isn't even really 'pro black'.

Heck, even folks like John Henrik Clark pointed out that black people are people of the Sun....

---

As I have repeated several times you have refuted nothing I wrote. Black people in the Pacific are recent migrants from Africa. Stay if you which in the void of white supremacy, and illiteracy of the history of Black people. Keep waiting for the Eurocentric Academe to tell you what is already in front of your eyes.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

promoting half baked nonsense theories just for the sake of 'black pride'. That isn't how this works.

---

what you call " half baked nonsense theories" is actually the great black art of improvisation, like a jazz trumpet solo applied to history.


 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
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.

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

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

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

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

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
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

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

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".

---

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

---

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

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


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




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

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

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

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

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


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

M haplogroups in Melanesia:

---

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





.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

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.



Figure 2: Cordaux

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:


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

---

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.
.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[QB] Akachi you are right Oceanic and Africans share a common bloodline.




DNA is showing the same correspondence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

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.

 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
^Those are not correspondences all the chart shows is the number of sequences in each cluster sampled in the each geographic areas

quote:

---

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


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.

---

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

quote:

---

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


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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
DougM

Black People are found throughout the world. Black people are found in North America.

DougM stop trying to win an argument, and actually listen to what People are telling you. Stop the ego, don't end up like lioness

---

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....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

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.



Figure 2: Cordaux

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:


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

---

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.
.

---

quote:

---

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


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

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

Richard Cordaux and Mark Stoneking

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

---

Clyde you are confused. See this ^^^

and you posted this >>



^^^ No M4

quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

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.



Figure 2: Cordaux

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:


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

---

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:

quote:

---

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


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

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

Richard Cordaux and Mark Stoneking

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

---

Clyde you are confused. See this ^^^

and you posted this >>



^^^ No M4

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

---

Clyde you are confused. See this ^^^

and you posted this >>



^^^ No M4

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Akachi:

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,

---

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
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

---

Clyde you are confused. See this ^^^

and you posted this >>



^^^ No M4

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Akachi:

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.


 

---