quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
[QB] I wonder why some of the afro Indian mixed group wasn't used like the kalinago,afro Mexican or Miskito indians?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
I wonder why some of the afro Indian mixed group wasn't used like the kalinago,afro Mexican or Miskito indians?

---

If one were studying ancient Native Americans you exclude not include the 17th century African element in a mixed group such as the Miskito

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
I'm only calling them african for explanation purposes whites already state African like people inhabitated the Americas pure Columbian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
I wonder why some of the afro Indian mixed group wasn't used like the kalinago,afro Mexican or Miskito indians?

---

If one were studying ancient Native Americans you exclude not include the 17th century African element in a mixed group such as the Miskito

---

lioness - I consider it my JOB to expose your lies and obfuscations.

The Miskito do have admixture from other Blacks (I say other Blacks, because there were many more native Blacks around them than Africans), and Europeans. But they are NOT a mixed race people, like say - Puerto Ricans. Therefore genetic analysis of Miskito is useful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:

lioness - I consider it my JOB to expose your lies and obfuscations.

The Miskito do have admixture...

Miskito people Written By:
The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica...

The Miskito culture has been strongly influenced by European contacts and by intermarriage with Africans brought to the area as slaves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diebythesword:
clyde what are the latest papers you've published?

---

Dr. Clyde wrote and article in Nov 2016 (excerpt below)

http://www.ancient-origins.net/history/pre-columbian-murals-and-norse-sagas-suggest-vikings-met-aztecs-and-outcome-was-not-pretty-021084


Pre-Columbian Murals and Norse Sagas Suggest Vikings Met the Aztecs, and the Outcome Was Not Pretty
by Clyde Winters

Norse Sagas Discussing Voyages that May Have Landed in Mexico
Hans Ebeling published the book ‘ Die Reise in die Vergangenheit III. Die Europäer gewinnen den Erdball. Geschichte der Neuzeit bis’ , in 1789. In his text, Ebeling talked about how Moctezuma II welcomed Hernán Cortés as Quetzalcoatl.


The Temple of the Warriors in Chichen Itza suggests that Europeans had visited Mexico between 600-900 AD. Murals in the temple depict black, white, and brown people. In some of these murals one can see whites fighting and in bondage to blacks.



White prisoners in bondage to blacks.



______________________________


Clyde, why do the "black" dudes have white faces?

were they mulatto ?

Also the ones wrapped up like mummies, how do you know hat's under there?

and they all have the same type of ornament hanging on the side of their heads
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Mike you say Puerto Ricans are mixed race. What races are pUerto Ricans comprised of?

---

.
Wiki:

Studies have shown that the ancestry of the average Puerto Rican (including all races) is about 64% Eurasian, 21% West and North African (including Canary Islander Guanche), and 15% Taino/Amerindian, with Eurasian ancestry strongest on the west side of the island and West African ancestry strongest on the east side, and consistent levels of Taino ancestry throughout the island.

In 1899, one year after the U.S invaded and took control of the island, 61.8% of the people self-identified as White. In the 2010 United States Census the total of Puerto Ricans that self-identified as White was 75.8%. Whites constitute the majority of the 3,725,789 people living in Puerto Rico, with 2,825,100 or 75.8% of the population in the 2010 United States Census, down from 80.5% in the 2000 Census.

Clearly there are few Pure Albino or Pure Black Puerto Ricans. Thus Puerto Ricans typify "Race Confused Mulatto Populations".
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
Mike and Clyde

Read and critique this African Native AMerican Ancestry Article and Tell the forum what you find:

An Ancestry of African-Native Americans , author Angela Walton-Raji traced her ancestors to the slaves owned by American Indians


Comanche Family

Angela Walton-Raji has been researching African-Native American genealogy for nearly 20 years and is the author of the book Black Indian Genealogy Research: African-American Ancestors Among the Five Civilized Tribes.
She recently presented a series of genealogy workshops at the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C., in conjunction with the exhibit IndiVisible: African-Native American Lives in the Americas. Walton-Raji’s ancestors are Freedmen, African-Americans who were slaves of the Five Civilized Tribes (they can't help themselves slaves obsessed goofs who have pig skin) –

the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole Nations – in Indian Territory, which became Oklahoma in 1907. The Cherokee freed their slaves in 1863, and after the Civil War, the other tribes did the same. All but the Chickasaw eventually granted Freedmen full citizenship in their tribe. In preparation for Oklahoma statehood, the U.S. Congress created the Dawes Commission, which was charged with dissolving collective tribal land ownership and allotting land to individual tribal members. Thousands of Freedmen came before the commission to prove their tribal membership and their right to a share of land. I spoke with Walton-Raji about her research.

What spurred you to start researching African-Native American history and genealogy?

I was inspired to begin the research because it’s part of my family history. I’m originally from western Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma, right there on the border. My great-grandmother Sallie Walton was born in Indian Territory, in the Choctaw Nation. She died in 1961 – I knew her very well. She was my babysitter until I went to kindergarten. [Her Choctaw heritage] was widely known in terms of family history. And growing up in a city such as Fort Smith, Arkansas … if you’re on the north side of the city, you can look at the Cherokee Nation, and if you’re on the south of the city, the bordering community is the Choctaw Nation.

I did have in my possession some family papers – a small land allotment record from [Sallie] that she had obtained from the Dawes Commission. I had been doing genealogy for many years but was curious, “Gee, is there more information out there to be found?” I really didn’t know what there was to find. So when I moved to the Washington, D.C., area and had access to the National Archives … I went and started looking and found family records, and I was just amazed.


What did you find?

I found a [Choctaw Nation] enrollment card for Samuel and Sallie Walton, my great-grandparents. And then my grandfather, Sam, Jr., was recorded there, my Uncle Houston’s name was there, my Aunt Louisa’s name. I was like, “Wow, I didn’t realize there was a document that reflected this!” On the reverse side of that same card, which was the next exposure on microfilm, was information about [Sam and Sallie’s] parents. Here was additional information about his mother, his father and her mother and her father – there were four new ancestors! But beyond that, I also found an interview with my great-grandmother and great-grandfather about their life in the Choctaw Nation. I had known of Samuel Walton but did not realize he was originally born in Arkansas and had later been sold as a slave to someone in the Choctaw Nation. I also began to recognize surnames of people whom I had grown up around. I realized, here’s an entire record set reflecting people who had been (edited)of Choctaw Indians, many of whom had Choctaw blood … an entire record set of African-American people that had never been talked about.


You’ve said the Freedmen have been “deleted” from American history in the past. What do you mean?

One hears, for example, about the forced migration of native people. One does not hear about the 1,200 (African Americans) that were taken west with the Cherokee Nation. One does not read in history books that many people who were Choctaws – and the Choctaws were actually the first group that migrated, in the winter of 1830 and 1831 – sold personal property to be able to purchase slaves to take with them to Indian Territory. Pull up any history book or just Google “map reflecting slavery,” and you’ll always see the map of what is called “the South” and you see that empty spot that [would be] Oklahoma, and it looks as if there was no slavery taking place there. When the treaty of 1866 finally abolished slavery in Indian Territory, the fact is that a community thrived – a community of people who were not slaves of the United States, and they were Freedmen.

What have you found in your research about how blended families – those with native, African and Anglo roots – historically identified themselves? Obviously there were limitations on what box they could check on the census form, for example.

And they weren’t allowed to check – it was somebody else checking the box.


So how did people present themselves to the community?

Self-identity is one thing and then a perceived identity is another. When you’re talking about perceived identity, that’s usually a census enumerator who was going around from house to house and was usually white and male. In Lake Charles, Louisiana, for example, an entire Indian village was captured in the census records … [but] the enumerator didn’t get the names of everyone. They would just write the name of a person such as “Baptiste” and say “his wife, his son, his daughter” without giving them a name. So more than likely that enumerator was not comfortable going into the Indian village … and just did a count without interacting with the people themselves. I always ask people to research an [ancestor] throughout their entire lifetime, and if this ancestor is continually identifying themselves differently than a descendent might claim – in other words, this descendent is claiming the ancestor was a Native American, but throughout that ancestor’s life they are identifying themselves as black – then one has to really look and say “Hmm, was this person really living in a Native American community?” Or is it a way to explain a light complexion that makes the family feel better than acknowledging that maybe this person’s mother or grandmother was involved in a relationship against her will? Some people may want to disassociate their family from having a blood tie to a slave master.

And on the other hand you’ll find some white families who don’t want to acknowledge having a black ancestor in the family and will claim, “This complexion came from an Indian relative.” I always say if you are a serious researcher, you follow the records.

What documents and records are there for the Freedman of the Five Civilized Tribes?

For Freedmen of Oklahoma, the source is amazing. There is a microfilm publication at the National Archives that consists of Freedman enrollment cards [for] individuals who had been enslaved (or their parents had been enslaved) by citizens of the Five Civilized Tribes. Those individuals were eligible to receive land allotment. Data was collected on each person who was applying [for land], usually the head of the household, about where they lived and who their slave owner was.

These interviews took place in the 1890s and slavery officially ended in 1866 in the Territory. The reverse side of the enrollment card is the name of the person’s parents – the father’s tribal enrollment, the name of the father’s slave owner if the father had been enslaved. In many cases, particularly in the Choctaw Nation and Chickasaw Nation, you’ll find that the father was actually an Indian. Then, the name of the person’s mother and her tribal enrollment … and the name of the mother’s slave owner. If on one side of the card you have a husband, his wife and their children, and on the reverse side you get the names of their parents, that means you have three generations on one card. Then, there’s an interview packet that contains hundreds of reels of microfilm of the actual interviews: “Sam Walton, sworn in under oath, testifies as follows…What is your name? Were you a slave? Where did you live? Who was your owner?”

What was the purpose of these interviews?

These gave the Dawes Commission information to decide whether or not a family should get a land allotment. Land was held in common by the tribes, and Freedmen were members of the tribe after 1866, because they didn’t have anywhere else to go [and] that was their home since the 1830s. So they remained where they were, they spoke the language. But Oklahoma statehood was approaching, and before the rest of the land could be released for white settlers to come in, the [U.S. government] decided to take the land that was held in common by the tribes and redistribute it to the individual members – the Western tradition of personal property.

What has been the reaction of your family to your research? What have you found that has surprised them?

I think the biggest surprise for my brother and I, who remember Sallie … was that both of us knew someone who had been born a slave. She was born in the middle of the Civil War in 1863 and she died in 1961.

Did she tell you she’d been born into slavery?

No, she didn’t. She had no memory of it. And also, children don’t know to ask their elders, “Tell me about your life when you were a child.” … My dad knew of his very strong ties to the Choctaw Nation, which was spoken about in everyday conversation, so that wasn’t new, but … I didn’t know this part of Sallie’s early history. Of course, where I grew up, everybody knows they have some ties to [Indian] Territory. In Fort Smith, everybody has cowboys, Indians, marshals and outlaws in their family.

What is your advice to people who want to start researching their African-Native American heritage?

Your heritage is your heritage, whether it’s white, whether it’s black, whether it’s blended, whether it’s a family of immigrants or a family native to the Americas. Your family history is done using the same methodology, regardless of ethnicity. You’re going to start with your oral history – you’re going to sit down and talk with your elders, and you’re going to talk with them more than one time. Transcribe those interviews. Even before you leave the house, you’re going to look and see what you have in the house – for example, I had some documents that were folded up in little pieces in Samuel Walton’s old Bible. There was Sallie’s land allotment information with “Choctaw Nation” stamped at the top. At some point you will be ready to start obtaining those vital records, and the most important thing is that you don’t skip back 100 years – you start with things that are more recent.



http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/an-ancestry-of-african-native-americans-7986049/

Read about how she found out her Ancestry as a Native American

Black Natives should never let Red Natives tell them a thing.
The Land belongs to Black Natives who never turned traitor to the lands for white trash respect.

the slave trade was a massive coverup of Black Native Ancestry by white devils and red native cowards
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Mike you say Puerto Ricans are mixed race. What races are pUerto Ricans comprised of?

---

.
Wiki:

Studies have shown that the ancestry of the average Puerto Rican (including all races) is about 64% Eurasian, 21% West and North African (including Canary Islander Guanche), and 15% Taino/Amerindian, with Eurasian ancestry strongest on the west side of the island and West African ancestry strongest on the east side, and consistent levels of Taino ancestry throughout the island.

In 1899, one year after the U.S invaded and took control of the island, 61.8% of the people self-identified as White. In the 2010 United States Census the total of Puerto Ricans that self-identified as White was 75.8%. Whites constitute the majority of the 3,725,789 people living in Puerto Rico, with 2,825,100 or 75.8% of the population in the 2010 United States Census, down from 80.5% in the 2000 Census.

Clearly there are few Pure Albino or Pure Black Puerto Ricans. Thus Puerto Ricans typify "Race Confused Mulatto Populations".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diebythesword:
clyde what are the latest papers you've published?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
Mike and Clyde

Read and critique this African Native AMerican Ancestry Article and Tell the forum what you find:

An Ancestry of African-Native Americans , author Angela Walton-Raji traced her ancestors to the slaves owned by American Indians


Comanche Family

Angela Walton-Raji has been researching African-Native American genealogy for nearly 20 years and is the author of the book Black Indian Genealogy Research: African-American Ancestors Among the Five Civilized Tribes.
She recently presented a series of genealogy workshops at the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C., in conjunction with the exhibit IndiVisible: African-Native American Lives in the Americas. Walton-Raji’s ancestors are Freedmen, African-Americans who were slaves of the Five Civilized Tribes (they can't help themselves slaves obsessed goofs who have pig skin) –

the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole Nations – in Indian Territory, which became Oklahoma in 1907. The Cherokee freed their slaves in 1863, and after the Civil War, the other tribes did the same. All but the Chickasaw eventually granted Freedmen full citizenship in their tribe. In preparation for Oklahoma statehood, the U.S. Congress created the Dawes Commission, which was charged with dissolving collective tribal land ownership and allotting land to individual tribal members. Thousands of Freedmen came before the commission to prove their tribal membership and their right to a share of land. I spoke with Walton-Raji about her research.

What spurred you to start researching African-Native American history and genealogy?

I was inspired to begin the research because it’s part of my family history. I’m originally from western Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma, right there on the border. My great-grandmother Sallie Walton was born in Indian Territory, in the Choctaw Nation. She died in 1961 – I knew her very well. She was my babysitter until I went to kindergarten. [Her Choctaw heritage] was widely known in terms of family history. And growing up in a city such as Fort Smith, Arkansas … if you’re on the north side of the city, you can look at the Cherokee Nation, and if you’re on the south of the city, the bordering community is the Choctaw Nation.

I did have in my possession some family papers – a small land allotment record from [Sallie] that she had obtained from the Dawes Commission. I had been doing genealogy for many years but was curious, “Gee, is there more information out there to be found?” I really didn’t know what there was to find. So when I moved to the Washington, D.C., area and had access to the National Archives … I went and started looking and found family records, and I was just amazed.


What did you find?

I found a [Choctaw Nation] enrollment card for Samuel and Sallie Walton, my great-grandparents. And then my grandfather, Sam, Jr., was recorded there, my Uncle Houston’s name was there, my Aunt Louisa’s name. I was like, “Wow, I didn’t realize there was a document that reflected this!” On the reverse side of that same card, which was the next exposure on microfilm, was information about [Sam and Sallie’s] parents. Here was additional information about his mother, his father and her mother and her father – there were four new ancestors! But beyond that, I also found an interview with my great-grandmother and great-grandfather about their life in the Choctaw Nation. I had known of Samuel Walton but did not realize he was originally born in Arkansas and had later been sold as a slave to someone in the Choctaw Nation. I also began to recognize surnames of people whom I had grown up around. I realized, here’s an entire record set reflecting people who had been (edited)of Choctaw Indians, many of whom had Choctaw blood … an entire record set of African-American people that had never been talked about.


You’ve said the Freedmen have been “deleted” from American history in the past. What do you mean?

One hears, for example, about the forced migration of native people. One does not hear about the 1,200 (African Americans) that were taken west with the Cherokee Nation. One does not read in history books that many people who were Choctaws – and the Choctaws were actually the first group that migrated, in the winter of 1830 and 1831 – sold personal property to be able to purchase slaves to take with them to Indian Territory. Pull up any history book or just Google “map reflecting slavery,” and you’ll always see the map of what is called “the South” and you see that empty spot that [would be] Oklahoma, and it looks as if there was no slavery taking place there. When the treaty of 1866 finally abolished slavery in Indian Territory, the fact is that a community thrived – a community of people who were not slaves of the United States, and they were Freedmen.

What have you found in your research about how blended families – those with native, African and Anglo roots – historically identified themselves? Obviously there were limitations on what box they could check on the census form, for example.

And they weren’t allowed to check – it was somebody else checking the box.


So how did people present themselves to the community?

Self-identity is one thing and then a perceived identity is another. When you’re talking about perceived identity, that’s usually a census enumerator who was going around from house to house and was usually white and male. In Lake Charles, Louisiana, for example, an entire Indian village was captured in the census records … [but] the enumerator didn’t get the names of everyone. They would just write the name of a person such as “Baptiste” and say “his wife, his son, his daughter” without giving them a name. So more than likely that enumerator was not comfortable going into the Indian village … and just did a count without interacting with the people themselves. I always ask people to research an [ancestor] throughout their entire lifetime, and if this ancestor is continually identifying themselves differently than a descendent might claim – in other words, this descendent is claiming the ancestor was a Native American, but throughout that ancestor’s life they are identifying themselves as black – then one has to really look and say “Hmm, was this person really living in a Native American community?” Or is it a way to explain a light complexion that makes the family feel better than acknowledging that maybe this person’s mother or grandmother was involved in a relationship against her will? Some people may want to disassociate their family from having a blood tie to a slave master.

And on the other hand you’ll find some white families who don’t want to acknowledge having a black ancestor in the family and will claim, “This complexion came from an Indian relative.” I always say if you are a serious researcher, you follow the records.

What documents and records are there for the Freedman of the Five Civilized Tribes?

For Freedmen of Oklahoma, the source is amazing. There is a microfilm publication at the National Archives that consists of Freedman enrollment cards [for] individuals who had been enslaved (or their parents had been enslaved) by citizens of the Five Civilized Tribes. Those individuals were eligible to receive land allotment. Data was collected on each person who was applying [for land], usually the head of the household, about where they lived and who their slave owner was.

These interviews took place in the 1890s and slavery officially ended in 1866 in the Territory. The reverse side of the enrollment card is the name of the person’s parents – the father’s tribal enrollment, the name of the father’s slave owner if the father had been enslaved. In many cases, particularly in the Choctaw Nation and Chickasaw Nation, you’ll find that the father was actually an Indian. Then, the name of the person’s mother and her tribal enrollment … and the name of the mother’s slave owner. If on one side of the card you have a husband, his wife and their children, and on the reverse side you get the names of their parents, that means you have three generations on one card. Then, there’s an interview packet that contains hundreds of reels of microfilm of the actual interviews: “Sam Walton, sworn in under oath, testifies as follows…What is your name? Were you a slave? Where did you live? Who was your owner?”

What was the purpose of these interviews?

These gave the Dawes Commission information to decide whether or not a family should get a land allotment. Land was held in common by the tribes, and Freedmen were members of the tribe after 1866, because they didn’t have anywhere else to go [and] that was their home since the 1830s. So they remained where they were, they spoke the language. But Oklahoma statehood was approaching, and before the rest of the land could be released for white settlers to come in, the [U.S. government] decided to take the land that was held in common by the tribes and redistribute it to the individual members – the Western tradition of personal property.

What has been the reaction of your family to your research? What have you found that has surprised them?

I think the biggest surprise for my brother and I, who remember Sallie … was that both of us knew someone who had been born a slave. She was born in the middle of the Civil War in 1863 and she died in 1961.

Did she tell you she’d been born into slavery?

No, she didn’t. She had no memory of it. And also, children don’t know to ask their elders, “Tell me about your life when you were a child.” … My dad knew of his very strong ties to the Choctaw Nation, which was spoken about in everyday conversation, so that wasn’t new, but … I didn’t know this part of Sallie’s early history. Of course, where I grew up, everybody knows they have some ties to [Indian] Territory. In Fort Smith, everybody has cowboys, Indians, marshals and outlaws in their family.

What is your advice to people who want to start researching their African-Native American heritage?

Your heritage is your heritage, whether it’s white, whether it’s black, whether it’s blended, whether it’s a family of immigrants or a family native to the Americas. Your family history is done using the same methodology, regardless of ethnicity. You’re going to start with your oral history – you’re going to sit down and talk with your elders, and you’re going to talk with them more than one time. Transcribe those interviews. Even before you leave the house, you’re going to look and see what you have in the house – for example, I had some documents that were folded up in little pieces in Samuel Walton’s old Bible. There was Sallie’s land allotment information with “Choctaw Nation” stamped at the top. At some point you will be ready to start obtaining those vital records, and the most important thing is that you don’t skip back 100 years – you start with things that are more recent.



http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/an-ancestry-of-african-native-americans-7986049/

Read about how she found out her Ancestry as a Native American

Black Natives should never let Red Natives tell them a thing.
The Land belongs to Black Natives who never turned traitor to the lands for white trash respect.

the slave trade was a massive coverup of Black Native Ancestry by white devils and red native cowards

---

It is sad that Angela believes that the only Black Native Americans were slaves. This is false most Southeastern and Midwestern Native Americans were Black Native Americans. That's why in my book: We are not JUST Africans, I tell the actual history of the Black Indians from prehistory to the Emancipation.




.
Click on the book cover above to order a copy of this book from Amazon.com.
.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Most African Americans have no native American ancestry, only about 5% do. Afarican Americans on average have more white European ancestry than Native. This should come as no surprise since Africans were brought into Euro-American culture and much fewer became part of the Native groups.
Oklahoma is the state where the most African-Americans have significant Native American ancestry.

____________________________

http://www.vocativ.com/usa/race/five-things-probably-dont-know-descendants-cherokees-black-slaves/

Five Things to Know About the Descendants of Cherokee’s Black Slaves

By Elizabeth Kulze
Mar 07, 2014 at 3:27 PM ET
Yes, the Cherokee had slaves, and no, their descendants are not happy. They’re so unhappy, in fact, that they’ve sued the Cherokee nation that enslaved and freed their ancestors, only to kick them out a century later. On Saturday they’ll be gathering in Tulsa, Oklahoma, to prepare for next month’s court proceedings. What do they want? To be recognized as part of the Cherokee nation again, of course. Confused? You’re not alone.

The group, known as the Freedmen, have been fighting the Cherokee government for citizenship since it was revoked in the early 1980s on the basis that they lacked proof of native blood. Today around 3,000 reservation residents claim lineage from blacks once enslaved by the Cherokee and the rights they were entitled to.

Here’s what you need to know.

So the Cherokee had slaves?

Thousands, actually. And it wasn’t just the Cherokee. Many members the Five Civilized Tribes—Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaws, Creeks and Seminoles—all of them had slaves, though the Cherokee were the primary holders. By 1860, the tribe had 4,600 enslaved blacks under their dominion, owned mainly by a minority of elite members. Beginning in the late 18th century, white leaders encouraged the tribe to adopt the practice in order to facilitate large-scale agricultural production and their assimilation into the white way of life.

In 1827, the Cherokee even created a slave code virtually indistinguishable from that of white Southern plantation owners. The document explicitly barred slaves and their descendants (including those of mixed race) from owning property, making money, drinking alcohol and marrying into the tribe. Blacks were also categorically disenfranchised, even if they were free or partially Cherokee.

During removal in the 1830s, 2,000 slaves were forced to march westward with their masters on the Trail of Tears. The tribe eventually settled in what is now Oklahoma, and their agrarian nation prospered, largely because of slave labor. So when Lincoln threatened the practice of slavery at the start of the Civil War, the slave-dependent Cherokee pledged allegiance to the Confederacy.



A Cherokee and his slave


Their ancestors were eventually freed. What’s the Freedmen’s main gripe?


In a nutshell, they want to be reinstated as rightful members of the Cherokee tribe. In 1866, after the Civil War, the Cherokee agreed with the federal government to grant full tribal citizenship to all freed slaves and their descendants in the wake of the Cherokee Emancipation Proclamation. The tribe’s newest members became known as the Freedman.

But the Freedmen’s rights were not easily won. The Cherokee became possessive and resisted the division of their assests. The U.S. government was able to overrule their efforts to shut the Freedman out of land and financial allocations, but nearly a century later, all progress was reversed. Ross O. Swimmer, the Chief of Cherokee Nation, issued an executive order in 1983 requiring that all citizens have a “Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood” in order to vote. The certificates were based on the Dawes Rolls, a tribal census taken between 1899 and 1906. At the time, mixed-blood Cherokees were treated as full members, while Freedman were listed separately, regardless of any native ancestry.

Following Swimmer’s declaration in 1983, 25,000 Freedman descendants were effectively cut off from their heritage, initiating a racially heated rumpus, which endures to this day.

Why do they want to be identified with Cherokee when they were enslaved by Cherokee?


Maybe history, maybe culture. Maybe free health care and other benefits. Freedman lived as citizens of the Cherokee nation for over a century before their rights were revoked, and some even served in the tribal government. They feel that to deny them Cherokee citizenship, is to deny them their cultural heritage. Excluding Freedmen from the Cherokee community also cuts them off from a host of benefits native populations now receive from the federal government, not to mention their right to restitution. That includes everything from free health care and housing assistance to scholarship money and employment opportunities.

So what’s happening now?

It’s a bureaucratic mess, and both sides are back in the courts. In 2006 the Cherokee Supreme Court ruled that the Freedmen’s native citizenship should be restored, saying that their government’s actions were unconstitutional. In response, Chad “Corntassel” Smith, then chief, called for a special election to create an amendment to repeal the ruling. After the vote, Freedman descendants were stripped of their citizenship yet again, which led to another brutal onslaught of lawsuits and appeals, battled out in U.S. and Cherokee courts. In 2011, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development even went so far as to freeze $33 million in funds unless the Cherokee government granted Freedman the right to vote in an upcoming election for chief. The native leadership eventually caved, allowing the Freedman to cast ballots, but refused to budge on the question of full citizenship. The latest complaints were filed by both sides in 2012, and a federal court will begin sorting out the matter next month—hopefully for good.
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
Lioness

The truth is that African Americans are Native Americans so the ancestry they have is of themselves.

Natives Were Black and Red, europeans have no valid hold on Native Americans much less African Americans.

euros did not make red bone and yellow boned African Americans they are their own race.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
There were five major migrations of Blacks into the Americas. The First, were probably Australian type Blacks who settled Brazil 100,000 years ago. The second group of Blacks to enter the Western Hemisphere were the Khoisan, they arrived in South America 30-45,000 years ago. By 15,000 BC, the Khoisan had introduced the Solutrean culture to North America. The Khoisan were followed by the Anu, or pgymy people after 10,000 BC. Other Africans made numerous migrations to America beginning around 2000 BC. Finally, during the Atlantic slave trade millions of Blacks were taken to the Americas by European slavers.

There is plenty of genetic evidence of an African presence in the Americas. First of all, you have to get away from the idea that Blacks left Africa only around 60kya. There were other migrations out of Africa. For example, the Khoisan who founded the Grimaldi/ Aurignacian culture in Europe left Africa around 40kya, and the Pygmy people who were usually referred to as the Anu, left Africa between 20-15kya. The pgymy people, as evidence of their presence on every continent had an extensive civilization in the past, eventhough , they are hunter-gatherers today.

There is no way the first Americans could have come from Asia, because the Beringa passage between Asia and the American continent did not become passable until after 12kya. But as early as 40kya there were American comunities in South America. I believe the first Africans to settle America were the Khoisan. The San would have carried the mtDNA haplogroup N into the Americas. The major American lineages A,B,C, are all descendent from haplogroup (hg) N.

The mtDNA haplogroups A2,B2 and X2a are daughter clades of N. Since hg N is carried by the Khoisan, this suggest an early presence of this population in the Americas, and supports an early expansion into the Americas.

The Khoisan was the first anatomically modern human population to settle Mexico and South America.

By 15kya we have a new population arriving in the Americas the Anu or pygmy people. There were numerous pygmy communities in South America.These pygmies probably were the first to introduce y-haplogroup R1b into the Americas. Other West African groups brought R1b and mtDNA N into the Americas between 2000BC and 1300 AD.

The presence of y-haplogroup R1b and the lineages descendenting from hg N is testimony to the Pre-Columbian presence of Blacks in the Americas.


The foundational mtDNA lineages for Mexican Indians are lineages A, B, C and D.The frequencies of these lineages vary among population groups. For example, whereas lineages A,B and C were present among Maya at Quintana Roo, Maya at Copan lacked lineages A and B . This supports Carolina Bonilla et al view that heterogeneity is a major characteristic of Mexican population . It is interesting to note that the speakers of the Mixe and Mande languages share many linguistic features and mtDNA haplogroup A.

The ancient Native American DNA is mtDNA macrohaplogroup M, namely D4 which the ancient name for M1. The most common y-Chromosome among Native Americans is the African haplogroup R1.

The presence of mtDNA haplogroup A among Native Americans does not mean Africans may have been representatives of the population from which Luzia originated. Haplogroup A is found among Mixe and Mixtecs .

The mtDNA A haplogroup common to Native Americans is also found among the Mande speaking people and some East Africans .The Mande speakers carry mtDNA haplogroup A, which is common among Mexicans . In addition to the Mande speaking people of West Africa, Southeast Africa Africans also carry mtDNA haplogroup A . The Gullah people of North Carolina also carry haplogroups A and B .


African ancestry has been found among indigenous groups that have had no historical contact with African slaves and thus support an African presence in America, already indicated by the skeletons of the first African Americans, e.g., Luizia, Eva Nahron and the Olmec people. Luiza may have been of Khoisan origin, while Eva Nahron would probably date to the Anu expansion into the Americas.


Lisker et al, noted that “The variation of Indian ancestry among the studied Indians shows in general a higher proportion in the more isolated groups, except for the Cora, who are as isolated as the Huichol and have not only a lower frequency but also a certain degree of black admixture. The black admixture is difficult to explain because the Cora reside in a mountainous region away from the west coast” .


Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. Green et al (2000) observed that the discovery of a proportion of African haplotypes roughly equivalent to the proportion of European haplotypes [among North Central Mexican Indians] cannot be explained by recent admixture of African Americans for the United States. This is especially the case for the Ojinaga area, which presently is, and historically has been largely isolated from U.S. African Americans. In the Ojinaga sample set, the frequency of African haplotypes was higher that that of European hyplotypes”.

Amerindians carry the X hg. Amerindians and Europeans hg X are different (Person, 2004). Haplogroup X has also been found throughout Africa . Shimada et al , believes that X(hX) is of African origin. Amerindian X is different from European hg X, skeletons from Brazil dating between 400-7000 BP have the transition np 16223 . Transition np 16223 is characteristic of African haplogroups. This suggest that Africans may have taken the X hg to the Americas in ancient times.


Underhill, et al (1996) noted that:" One Mayan male, previously [has been] shown to have an African Y chromosome." This is very interesting because the Maya language illustrates a Mande substratum, in addition to African genetic markers. James l. Gutherie in a study of the HLAs in indigenous American populations, found that the Vantigen of the Rhesus system, considered to be an indication of African ancestry, among Indians in Belize and Mexico centers of Mayan civilization . Dr. Gutherie also noted that A*28 common among Africans has high frequencies among Eastern Maya. It is interesting to note that the Otomi, a Mexican group identified as being of African origin and six Mayan groups show the B Allele of the ABO system that is considered to be of African origin.


Native Americans carry a high frequency of R-M173 . The most predominate y-chromosome in North America is R-M173. R-M173 is found only in the Northeastern United States along with mtDNA haplogroup X (25%). Both haplogroups are found in Africa, but is absent in Siberia.

There are varying frequencies of y-chromosome M-173 in Africa and Eurasia. Whereas only between 8% and 10% of M-173 is carried by Eurasians, 82% of the carriers of this y-chromosome are found in Africa.

This is very interesting given the presence on R-M173 is found among many American Indian groups (1-2, 12-14). R-M173 among the North American Algonquian group range from Ojibwe (79%), Chipewyan (62%), Seminole (50%), Cherokee (47%), Dogrib (40%) and Papago (38%) . These Indian groups hav a long association with Africans and many live in areas were Europeans found Black Native Americans.

Another interesting y-chromosome found in the Americas is haplogroup A1, common to many sub-Saharan Africans including the Pygmy/Anu people. Y-chromosome A1 is recognized as an African haplogroup. Ancient y-chromosome date was succesfully recovered from 24 skeletal samples of a total of 60 ancient individuals from Patagonia-Tierra del Fuego, dated to 100-400 years. Y-chromosome STRs (DYS434, DYS437, DYS439, DYS393, DYS391, DYS390, DYS19, DYS389I, DYS389II, and DYS388) . These Y-STR alleles are associated with African y-chromosomes .
.



.
It is obvious from the above that most Native American R lineages are not R-M269. And even you note that they are majority R-M173. This makes your entire argument bogus.

The fact remains that Khoisan, Pgymy , Fulani and etc., carry M269. This indicates that this y-chromosome was widespread in Africa.

It would have been easy for Africans to pass on R-M173 to Native Americas. They could have done this because many carriers of R-M173 were probably brought to America in the early days of Slavery.In fact most of the Black Native Americans who lived in the South and Northeast established communities before 1799, some as early as the 1500's in the Carolinas and Florida.

The year 1799 is an important date for Afro-Americans. It was after this date that the InterState Slavetrade began. During this slave trade the average slave was sold to another plantation and/or part of the United States by the age of five (5). This meant a lot of intramarriage This Interstate slave trade made the Afro-American population more "homogenous" than the pre-1799 population. It was during this period that the number of Afro-Americans carrying R-M173 probably declined.

Eventhough the Interstate slave trade probably made the Afro-American population more "homogenous" today around 14.30% Afro-Americans carry R-M269.

Finally there was never extensive intermarriage between Northeastern Native Americans and Europeans so they can not account for the spread of R-M173 among Native Americans .


In conclusion, the presence of mtDNA hg N and A; and the Y-chromosome hg R1b and A1, testify to the ancient African presence in the Americas.

You can find out more in my book We are not JUST Africans.


[/URL]

.
Click on the book cover above to order a copy of this book from Amazon.com.

.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[QB] There were five major migrations of Blacks into the Americas. The First, were probably Australian type Blacks who settled Brazil 100,000 years ago. The second group of Blacks to enter the Western Hemisphere were the Khoisan, they arrived in South America 30-45,000 years ago. By 15,000 BC, the Khoisan had introduced the Solutrean culture to North America. The Khoisan were followed by the Anu, or pgymy people after 10,000 BC. Other Africans made numerous migrations to America beginning around 2000 BC. Finally, during the Atlantic slave trade millions of Blacks were taken to the Americas by European slavers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
[QB] Lioness

The truth is that African Americans are Native Americans so the ancestry they have is of themselves.

---

Wrong, Blacks in the Americas today are 95% comprised of Africans who came to the Americas from the early 16th century to the present

Therefore they are 95% not comprised of people native to the Americas
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
The Lioness

that's complete utter bullish Lioness....


Theres no way that Black People were built from 400 thousand people to 42million.

the numbers don't add up Lioness...and repeating lies from the mainstream does not mek truth.

African Americans are 100% comprised of peoples from the Americas.
no excuse for what the liars that peddle there slave trade bull are saying..it makes no sense...

I'll post this about the dna nonsense that I posted to DougM Here

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 and found out he was East Asian not African:



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...Fake..and cowards

Queen Califa of California Black Native American Queen Of U.S.A
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=011449

^^^Read whole thread at link

the original DNA said he was 92% east Asian...
persons or scientist are editing the article of Arogundade
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:


African Americans are 100% comprised of peoples from the Americas.

---

Your statement makes no sense

If Blacks in America are 100% comprised of peoples from the Americas then why are you calling them "African Americans" ???


The proper way to say what you are trying to say is that Blacks in the Americas are Native Americans not African Americans

(the fact that we look like West Africans that's just a coincidence)







^^ So what do we have here? Two Native Americans?

>Forget about reparations, slavery never happened, it was a hoax
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:


African Americans are 100% comprised of peoples from the Americas.

---

Your statement makes no sense

If Blacks in America are 100% comprised of peoples from the Americas then why are you calling them "African Americans" ???


The proper way to say what you are trying to say is that Blacks in the Americas are Native Americans not African Americans

(the fact that we look like West Africans that's just a coincidence)







^^ So what do we have here? Two Native Americans?

>Forget about reparations, slavery never happened, it was a hoax

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[QB] There were five major migrations of Blacks into the Americas. The First, were probably Australian type Blacks who settled Brazil 100,000 years ago. The second group of Blacks to enter the Western Hemisphere were the Khoisan, they arrived in South America 30-45,000 years ago. By 15,000 BC, the Khoisan had introduced the Solutrean culture to North America. The Khoisan were followed by the Anu, or pgymy people after 10,000 BC. Other Africans made numerous migrations to America beginning around 2000 BC. Finally, during the Atlantic slave trade millions of Blacks were taken to the Americas by European slavers.

---

Blacks in the Americas today are 95% comprised of Africans who came to the Americas from the early 16th century to the present

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
100% of Black people in the United States are the result of Black European+Black African+Black Native American= Afro-American.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
100% of Black people in the United States are the result of Black European+Black African+Black Native American= Afro-American.

---

You might want all Blacks in America to mix of indigenous "black Europeans" , Africans and Native Americans but that is wishful thinking. Most Africans brought to America did not mix with Native Americans. There is no record of indigenous Black Europeans coming to America. There may have been some blacks who were Africans living in Europe for serval hundred years and before the trans Atlantic slave trade who may have wound up in America but they were not indigenous Europeans.

Furthermore even what you were saying was the case the average black person would be about 70% African, 25% white European and anything else 5%. So even in your statement you have no average percentages. A person could be Irish and Japanese. They might be half and half or they might be 95% Irish, 5% Japanese or 95% Japanese 5% Irish.
Some white Americans have similarly small percentages of Native American ancestry also.


Some Native Americans have been in America for at least 12,000 years, others perhaps much longer and before that probably in some other place out of Africa. In that long period of time, even several thousands years in a new environment their DNA would change and it has. So you are not going to find West African haplogroups in high frequencies in Native Americas.
However you will find them in high frequencies in black Americans.

The average black American is 70% or more African but some people are in denial we are primarily recent Africans.
That is because people are ashamed to be African

---

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.

In very ancient times the American continent was inhabited by Asian and African blacks. The oldest skeletal remains found in the Americas are of blacks. Marquez observed that "it is [good] to report that long ago the youthful America was also a Negro continent." Dr. Dixon (1923) noted that Austroloid and later negritos or the Anu people crossed the Bering Strait to reach the New World. These people were Blacks as illustrated by the reconstructed image of the first Europeans.
.


.
And Lanning noted that "there was a possible movement of negritos from Ecuador into the Piura Valley, north of Chicama and Viru" in early times. This would explain the Incan nobles discussed by Mike.




Controversy surrounds the origin of the Paleoamericans. Hrdlička advanced the idea that the Paleoamericans were homogenous, a people that originated in East Asia or Melanesia . Other researchers were not so sure.

In the 1960’s there was a return to the study of craniometrics quantitative analysis and multivariate methods to determine the Native American population . This research indicated that the ancient Americans represent two populations, Paleoamericans were phenotypically African, Australian or Melanesian and a mongoloid population that appears to have arrived in the Americas after 6000 BC. Although we are sure of the ethnic identity of the Paleoamericans we do not know from which continent the Paleoamericans came from.





Scientist have already made it clear the first Brazilians were Africans--Black People. 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 in Brazil 100,000 years ago . 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, 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 can reject this evidence but it proves that Blacks were here before the mongoloids. Stop trying to steal the history of the Black Native Americans.

In the 1970’s in Brazil an interesting skull of a girl was found. This skull was reconstructed and dated back to 12,000 BP (Neves and Pucciarelli, 1991; Neves, Powell and Ozolins, 1999c, 1999d). Dr. Walter Neves professor of biological anthropology at the University of Sao Paolo, after reconstructing the “Luzia” skull found that this personage was either an African or Pacific island type Black (Neves , Powell and Ozolins, 1999c ) .

Scientists have used the skulls of these skeletons to reconstruct the face of the Paleoamericans. The skulls of these Paleoamericans are of Black Native American females. The scientists gave them names Penon woman, Luzia and Naia.
.




.

The Paleoamericans are ethnically different from contemporary Native Americans.All of the Paleoamericans have been classified as part of the Black Variety. This includes Naia, Penon Woman of Mexico and Luzia of Brazil.

The craniometric mesasurements of the Paleoamerican skeletons fall within the Black Variety of homo sapien sapiens: African, Australian and the Melanesian phenotypic range (Neves, Powell and Ozolins,1998, 1999a,1999b; Powell,2005). The craniometric measurements of the PaleoIndians match the multivariate standard deviations of these three populations.

The determination of the Paleoamericans as members of the Black Variety is not a new phenomena. Howells ( 1973,1989,1995) using multivariate analyses, determined that the Easter Island population was characterized as Australo-Melanesian, while other skeletons from South America were found to be related to Africans and Australians ( Coon, 1962; Dixon, 2001; Howell, 1989, 1995; Lahr, 1996). The African-Australo-Melanesian morphology was widespread in North and South America. For example skeletal remains belonging to the Black Variety have been found in Brazil (Neves, Powell, Prous and Ozolins,1998; Neves, Powell, Ozolins, 1998), Columbian Highlands (Neves, Pacciarelli, Munford, 1995; Powell, 2005 ), Mexico ( Gonza’lez-Jose, 2012), Florida ( Howells,1995), and Southern Patazonia ( Neves, Powell and Ozolins,1999a,1999b).

The facial reconstruction of the Paleoamericans were startling ( Neto and Santo,2010). The bioanthropologist Walter Neves’s reconstruction evidenced Negroid features for the Paleoamerican we call Luzia. Negroid features common to the Black Variety that were different from the indigenous mongoloid features of contemporary Americans ( Neto and Santo, 2010). What made this finding startling was that Neves using the mahalanobis distance and principal component analysis, found that 75 other skulls from Lagos Santa, were also phenotypically African or Australian ( Neves, Gonza’lez-Jose, Hubbe, Kipnis et al,2004). This has led researchers to highlight the fact that the PaleoIndian non-Mongoloid morphology was widespread across the Americas and that the population type is African-Australian (Munford et al, 1995; Neves et al, 2004; Neves and Hubbe, 2005). As a result, the cranial morphology of the ancient Americans indicates that two populations settled the Americas one African-Australian and the other mongoloid ( Neves and Hubbe,2005; Powell, 2005).

There is no single phenotypical negro that can be classified as Sub-Saharan African, so we have to apply the term Black Variety to the African-Australian-Polynesian populations.

Several types of blacks entered the Americas including the Anu or negrito type and the Proto-Saharan variety of blacks. Up until recently it was believed that the first humans crossed the Bering Strait 12,000 B.P., to enter the North American continent.(Begley 1991, p.15) This view was never accepted by physical anthropologists who have found skeletal remains far older than 12,000 B.P.
.



.

Today archaeologists have found sites from Canada to Chile that range between 20,000 and 40,000 years old. There are numerous sites in North and South America which are over 35,000 years old. These sites are the Old Crow Basin (c.38,000 B.C.) in Canada; Orogrande Cave (c.36,000 B.C.) in the United States; and Pedra Furada (c.45,000 B.C.) Given the fact that the earliest dates for habitation of the American continent occur below Canada in South America is highly suggestive of the fact that the earliest settlers on the American continents came from Africa before the Ice melted at the Bering Strait and moved northward as the ice melted.

The appearance of pebble tools at Monte verde in Chile (c.32,000 B.P), and rock paintings at Pedra Furada in Brazil (c.22,000 B.P.) and mastodont hunting in Venezuela and Colombia (c.13,000 B.P.), have led some researchers to believe that the Americas was first settled from South America. C. Vance Haynes noted that: "If people have been in South America for over 30,000 years, or even 20,000 years, why are there so few sites?....One possible answer is that they were so few in number; another is that South America was somehow initially populated from directions other than north until Clovis appeared".

P.S. Martin and R. G. Klein after discussing the evidence of mastodont hunting in Venezuela 13,000 years ago observed that : "The thought that the fossil record of South America is much richer in evidence of early archaeological associations than many believed is indeed provocative.... Have the earliest hunters been overlooked in North America? Or did the hunters somehow reach South America first"?

The early presence of ice-age sites in South America suggest that these people came from Africa.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
100% of Black people in the United States are the result of Black European+Black African+Black Native American= Afro-American.

---

Some Native Americans have been in America for at least 12,000 years, others perhaps much longer and before that probably in some other place out of Africa. In that long period of time, even several thousands years in a new environment their DNA would change and it has. So you are not going to find West African haplogroups in high frequencies in Native Americas.

However you will find them in high frequencies in black Americans.

---

You don't know what you're talking about. There is continuity between the DNA carried by Paleoamericans and West Africans. Paleoamericans, like the Anzick child carried haplogroup D, which is the same as African M1, and R-M173. Both of these haplogroups are carried by West Africans.




There is no continuity between the Anzick man and contemporary mongoloid Native Americans. In A genomic view of the peopling of the Americas, by Pontus Skoglund, and David Reich: http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reichlab/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/SkoglundReich2016_Americas.pdf
the researchers noted that " The most surprising finding was that the Anzick individual is from a population more closely related to Central Americans and South Americans than to some northern North Americans (including all speakers of Algonquian languages studied to date), despite the apparent common ancestral origin of Native Americans across the continents. "

Look at how researchers make confusing statements,. If the Anzick man is not related to contemporary "northern North Americans (including all speakers of Algonquian languages studied to date)", there is in reality no "apparent common ancestral origin of Native Americans across the continents " .

Haplogroup M was a common Paleoamerican haplogroup. Most contemporary Native Americans carry mtDNA that belongs to the M macrohaplogroup, name A and B.

Given the fact that the other ancient Eurasians and Paleoamericans carried haplogroup M, e.g., the 5000 year old skeletons carrying haplogroup M from China Lake, British Columbia (Malhi et al., 2007), more than likely Naia of Mexico was D1 and Anzick child was D4.

The Anzick child and Naia carried the D haplogroup , which is the name for M1, in Asia. Haplotypes with HVSI transitions defining 16129-16223-16249-16278-16311-16362; and 16129-16223-16234-16249-16211-16362 have been found in Thailand and among the Han Chinese (Fucharoen et al, 2001; Yao et al, 2002) and these were originally thought to be members of Haplogroup M1. However, on the basis of currently available FGS sequences, carriers of these markers have been found to be in the D4a branch of Haplogroup D , the most widespread branch of M1 in East Asia (Fucharoen et al, 2001; Yao et al, 2002). The transitions 16129,16189,16249 and 16311 are known to be recurrent in various branches of Haplogroup M, especially M1 and D4.

The presence of SSA in North America suggests an African origin for the presence of y-DNA R-M173 among Native Americans. This results from the high frequency of haplogroup R1, among African populations across the African Continent, and especially in West Africa (Gonzalez et al., 2012; Winters, 2010, 2011b).


The pristine form of R1*M173 is found only in Africa (Cruciani et al., 2002, 2010). The frequency of Ychromosome R1*-M173 in Africa range between 7-95% and averages 39.5% (Coia et al., 2005). The R*- M173 (haplotype 117) chromosome is found frequently in Africa, but rare to extremely low frequencies in Eurasia. The Eurasian R haplogroup is characterized by R1b3-M269. The M269 derived allele has a M207/M173 background.

Y-chromosome V88 (R1b1a) has its highest frequency among Chadic speakers, while the carriers of V88 among Niger-Congo speakers (predominately Bantu people) range between 2-66% (Cruciani et al., 2010; Bernielle-Lee et al., 2009). Haplogroup V88 includes the mutations M18, V35 and V7. Cruciani et al., (2010) revealed that R-V88 is also carried by Eurasians including the distinctive mutations M18, V35 and V7. R1b1-P25 is found in Western Eurasia.

Haplogroup R1b1* is found in Africa at various frequencies. In Table 3, we present the frequencies of R-M269 in Sub-Saharan Africa. Berniell-Lee et al., (2009) found in their study that 5.2% of SSA carried Rb1*. The frequency of R1b1* among the Bantu ranged from 2-20. The bearers of R1b1* among the Pygmy populations ranged from 1- 25% (Berniell-Lee et al., 2009). The frequency of R1b1 among Guinea-Bissau populations was 12% (Carvalho et al., 2010).
Henn et al., (2011) was surprised by this revelation of R-M269 among this Khoisan population. As a result, he interviewed the carries of R1b1b2a1a, and learned that no members of their families had relations with Europeans.

The presence of R lineages among hunter-gatherer (HG) populations is not new. Wood et al., reported Khoisan carriers of R-M269 (Wood et al., 2005). Bernielle-Lee et al., (2009), in their study of the Baka and Bakola pygmies found the the R1b1* haplogroup (Bernielle-Lee et al., 2009). These researchers made it clear that the Baka samples clustered closely to Khoisan samples (Bernielle-Lee et al., 2009). The most common R haplogroup in Africa is V88. Given the interaction between hunter-gatherer (HG) groups and agro-pastoral groups they live in close proximity too, we would assume that African HG would carry the V88 lineage.

Yet, as pointed out above the HG populations carry R-M269 instead of V88 (Winters, 2011b). The implications of R-M269 among HG populations, and Henn et al., (2011) of shared African HG genome suggest that R-M269 may represent a HG genome thus an ancient African R lineage. The presence of R-M269 among HG human groupings fails to support a back migration of R-M269 from Europe.

In a recent article on the R1 clade, Gonzalez et al., (2012), argue that R1 probably spread across Europe from Iberia to the east given the distribution of R1 in Africa.


The M haplogroup was first introduced to the Americas by the Khoisan who introduced the Clovis and Solutrean tool kits in the Americas. The Khoisan carries the most ancient mtDNA and y-chromosome haplogroups in addition to haplogroups M and R1. This suggests that the paleoamericans were probably Khoisan as suggested by Coon (1962), Howells (1973, 1989) and Dixon (2001). These Paleoamericans introduced haplogroups M and R into the America.

The Khoisan people came to the Americas between 20-10kya. They began to settle Europe 44kya.


References:

Berniell-Lee G, Calafell F, Bosch E, Heyer E, Sica L, Mouguiama-Daouda P, Van der Veen L, Hombert JM, Quintana-Murci L and Comas D (2009). Genetic and Demographic Implications of the Bantu Expansion: Insights from Human Paternal Lineages. Molecular Biology and Evolution 26(7) 1581- 1589; Available: doi:10.1093/molbev/msp069.

Carvalho M, Brito P, Bento AM, Gomes V, Antunes H, Costa HA, Lopes V, Serra A, Balsa F, Andrade L, Anjos MJ, Corte-Real F and Gusmão L (2011). Paternal and maternal lineages in GuineaBissau population. Forensic Sciences International Genetic 5(2) 114-6.

Coia V, Destro-Bisol G, Verginelli F, Battaggia C, Boschi I, Cruciani F, Spedini G, Comas D and Calafell F (2005). Brief communication: mtDNA variation in North Cameroon: lack of Asian lineages and implications for back migration from Asia to sub-Saharan Africa. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, (electronically published May 13, 2005; accessed August 5, 2005). (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/110495269/PDFSTART


Cruciani F, Trombetta B, Sellitto D, Massaia A, destroy-Bisol G, Watson E and Colomb EB (2010). European Journal of Human Genetics (6 January 2010), Available: doi:10.1038/ejhg.2009.231: 1-8

Cruciani F, Santolamazza P, Shen P, Macaulay V, Moral P and Olckers A (2002). A Back Migration from Asia to Sub-Saharan Africa is supported by High-Resolution Analysis of Human Y-chromosome Haplotypes. American Journal of Human Genetics 70 1197-1214.

Coon CS (1962). The Origin of Races (New York: Knopf).

Dixon EJ (2001). Human colonization of the Americas: timing, chronology and process. Quaternary Science Review 20 277–99.

Fucharoen G, Fucharoen S, Horai S.(2001). Mitochondrial DNA polymorphism in Thailand. J Hum Genet , 46:115-125.

Gonzalez et al., (2012). The genetic landscape of Equatorial Guinea and the origin and migration routes of the Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88. European Journal of Human Genetics, advance online publication 15 August 2012; Available: doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2012.167.

Gonder MK, Mortensen HM, Reed FA, de Sousa A, Tishkoff SA.(2006).: Whole mtDNA Genome Sequence Analysis of Ancient African Lineages. Mol Biol Evol., Dec 28.

Howells WW (1973). Cranial Variation in Man: A Study by Multivariate Analysis of Patterns of Difference among Recent Human Populations. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 67.

Howells WW (1989). Skull Shapes and the Map: Craniometric Analyses in the Dispersion of ModernHomo. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University 79.


Winters C (2011a). Comment: Genetic Evidence of Early Migrations into America. Retrived 2/18/2015: http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=18395

Winters C (2011b). Is Native American R Y-Chromosome of African Origin?. Current Research Journal of Biological Sciences 3(6) 555-558.

Winters C (2011c). The Gibraltar Out of Africa Exit for Anatomically Modern Humans. Webmed Central Biology 2(10) WMC002319, Available: http://www.webmedcentral.com/article_view/2319

.


Winters,C. (2015). THE PALEOAMERICANS CAME FROM AFRICA,jirr.htm2015 Vol. 3 (3) July-September, pp.71-83/Winter. https://www.academia.edu/17137182/THE_PALEOAMERICANS_CAME_FROM_AFRICA

Winters,C. (2015a). AFRICAN ORIGIN OF NATIVE AMERICAN R1-M173. International Journal of Innovative Research and Review , 3 (1):21-29. http://www.cibtech.org/J-Innovative-Research-Review/Publications/2015/Vol-3-No-1/04-JIRR-004-CLYDE-AFRICAN.pdf

_________HLA-B*35 IN MEXICAN AMERINDIANS AND
AFRICAN , https://www.academia.edu/11789004/HLA-B_35_IN_MEXICAN_AMERINDIANS_AND_AFRICAN_POPULATIONS

___________Inference of Ancient Black Mexican Tribes and DNA, http://www.webmedcentral.com/article_view/4856

_______________. AFRICAN ORIGINS PALEOAMERICAN DNA . https://www.academia.edu/12231300/AFRICAN_ORIGINS_PALEOAMERICAN_DNA



Yao YG, Kong QP, Bandelt HJ, Kivisild T, Zhang YP.(2002). Phylogeographic differentiation of mitochondrial DNA in Han chinese. Am J Hum Genet , 70:635-651.
 

---

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

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
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

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

---

Stupid liar! You are the one making nonesence. They both dark but only one is called Black.

The South american Indian is a mongoloid.



.


Will Smith is a Negro. Negro means Black-Stupid.

.

.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:


Haplogroup M was a common Paleoamerican haplogroup. Most contemporary Native Americans carry mtDNA that belongs to the M macrohaplogroup, name A and B.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The Anzick child and Naia carried the D haplogroup

---

Black Americans of haplogroup D are not virtually found in Black Americans or Africans
-but it is common in Siberians, Central Asians and East Asians





^^ These are Aleut people in Alaska and part of Russia

While English and Russian are the dominant languages used by Aleuts living in the United States and Russia respectively, the Aleut language is still spoken by an estimated 150 people in the United States and 5 people in Russia.[ The language belongs to the Eskimo-Aleut language family and includes three dialect groupings: Eastern Aleut, spoken on the Eastern Aleutian, Shumagin, Fox and Pribilof Islands; Atkan, spoken on Atka and Bering islands; and the now extinct Attuan dialect.


These people have the highest frequencies if Haplogroup D in the world


/close already closed thread


Clyde you seem to not have the slightest idea of the genetic makeup of the African America.

Maybe you should start there. I bet you couldn't even name the highest frequency haplogroups, Y and myDNA of most African Americans
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:


Haplogroup M was a common Paleoamerican haplogroup. Most contemporary Native Americans carry mtDNA that belongs to the M macrohaplogroup, name A and B.

---

The vast majority of black Americans do not carry mtDNA A or B


/close thread

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The Anzick child and Naia carried the D haplogroup

---

Black Americans of haplogroup D are not virtually found in Black Americans or Africans
-but it is common in Siberians, Central Asians and East Asians





^^ These are Aleut people in Alaska and part of Russia

While English and Russian are the dominant languages used by Aleuts living in the United States and Russia respectively, the Aleut language is still spoken by an estimated 150 people in the United States and 5 people in Russia.[ The language belongs to the Eskimo-Aleut language family and includes three dialect groupings: Eastern Aleut, spoken on the Eastern Aleutian, Shumagin, Fox and Pribilof Islands; Atkan, spoken on Atka and Bering islands; and the now extinct Attuan dialect.


These people have the highest frequencies if Haplogroup D in the world


/close already closed thread


Clyde you seem to not have the slightest idea of the genetic makeup of the African America.

Maybe you should start there. I bet you couldn't even name the highest frequency haplogroups, Y and myDNA of most African Americans

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:


Haplogroup M was a common Paleoamerican haplogroup. Most contemporary Native Americans carry mtDNA that belongs to the M macrohaplogroup, name A and B.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

All Black Native Americans do not carry haplogroup A and B, this haplogroup is mainly carried by mongoloid Indians. They carry all of the haplogroups carried by Africans including L and y-chromosome E.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:


Haplogroup M was a common Paleoamerican haplogroup. Most contemporary Native Americans carry mtDNA that belongs to the M macrohaplogroup, name A and B.

---

So most Native Americans carry mtDNA that belong to a Paleoamerican haplogroup

While most African Americans do not belong to a Paleoamerican haplogroup

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

All Black Native Americans do not carry haplogroup A and B, this haplogroup is mainly carried by mongoloid Indians. They carry all of the haplogroups carried by Africans including L and y-chromosome E.

---

Paleoamericans did not belong to L and y-chromosome E, the vastly predominant DNA of Black Americans


/close thread part III

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Paleoamericans, like the Anzick child carried haplogroup D,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:


As I explained earlier Mongoloid Native Americans do not carry M or D, they carry A and B. But West Africans carry and Afro-Americans carry M.

---

Again, "Mongoloid" Native Americans do carry D and at the highest frequencies in the world




The top three with the highest frequencies are Alaska/Russian "mongoloid" types very similar looking to Eskimos.
Then there's Tibetans, Central Asians, Japanese, Han Chinese

So Clyde, what the hell are you talking about?
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Paleoamericans, like the Anzick child carried haplogroup D,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:


As I explained earlier Mongoloid Native Americans do not carry M or D, they carry A and B. But West Africans carry and Afro-Americans carry M.

---

Again, "Mongoloid" Native Americans do carry D and at the highest frequencies in the world




The top three with the highest frequencies are Alaska/Russian "mongoloid" types very similar looking to Eskimos.
Then there's Tibetans, Central Asians, Japanese, Han Chinese

So Clyde, what the hell are you talking about?

---

Below we have the earliest carriers of haplogroup D [ L3(M) ] ,they look nothing like the Mongoloids in your list, they were Negroes or Blacks.. Remember the first European was originally a native of Siberia.

.



.

I have already discussed the fact that the D haplogroup is nothing more than haplogroup M1. These people are just carrying an African haplogroup. Researchers gave it a different name to make it appear that the haplogroup is not related to mtDNA M1.

The D haplogroup , which is the name for M1, in Asia. Haplotypes with HVSI transitions defining 16129-16223-16249-16278-16311-16362; and 16129-16223-16234-16249-16211-16362 have been found in Thailand and among the Han Chinese (Fucharoen et al, 2001; Yao et al, 2002) and these were originally thought to be members of Haplogroup M1. However, on the basis of currently available FGS sequences, carriers of these markers have been found to be in the D4a branch of Haplogroup D , the most widespread branch of M1 in East Asia (Fucharoen et al, 2001; Yao et al, 2002). The transitions 16129,16189,16249 and 16311 are known to be recurrent in various branches of Haplogroup M, especially M1 and D4.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

.

I have already discussed the fact that the D haplogroup is nothing more than haplogroup M1.

---

You discussed that but it is false.
Most Africans Americans are not M1 carriers.
Haplogroup M has it's highest diversity and frequency outside of Africa.

If you look at haplogroup D it does not follow M1.
It follows ALL the other M haplogroups that evolved outside of Africa.

Below is the phylogeny, M1 is at the beginning

D is at the very end of all the transitions that occurred in Asia, in India and elsewhere

M
M1
M1a
M1a1
M1a1a
M1a1b
M1a1b1
M1a1c
M1a1d
M1a1e
M1a1f
M1a2
M1a2a
M1a2b
M1a3
M1a3a
M1a3b
M1a4
M1a5
M1b
M1b1
M1b1a
M1b2
M1b2a
M2
M2a
M2a1
M2a2
M2a3
M2b
M2b1
M2b2
M3
M3a
M4"45
M4
M4a
M4b
M4b1
M18'38
M18
M38
M30
M30a
M30b
M30c
M30c1
M30c1a
M30c1a1
M30d
M37
M37a
M43
M45
M5
M5a
M5a1
M5a1a
M5a1b
M5a2
M5a2a
M6
M7
M7a
M7a1
M7a1a
M7a1a1
M7a1a1a
M7a1a2
M7a1a3
M7a1a4
M7a1a4a
M7a1a5
M7a1a6
M7a1a7
M7a1b
M7a2
M7a2a
M7a2b
M7b'c'd'e
M7b'd
M7b
M7b1'2
M7b1
M7b2
M7b2a
M7b2b
M7b2c
M7b3
M7b3a
M7d
M7c'e
M7c
M7c1
M7c1a
M7c1b
M7c1b1
M7c2
M7c2a
M7c3
M7c3a
M7c3b
M7c3c
M7e
M8
M8a
M8a1
M8a2
M8a2a
M8a2b
CZ
C
Z
M9
M9a'b'c'd
M9a'c'd
M9a'd
M9a
M9a1
M9a2
M9a3
M9d
M9c
M9b
E
M10'42
M10
M10a
M10a1
M10a2
M42
M42a
M11
M11a
M11b
M12'G
M12
M12a
G
M13
M13a
M13a1
M14
M15
M21
M21a'b
M21a
M21b
M21c'd
M21c
M21d
M22
M23
M25
M27
M27a
M27b
M27c
M28
M28a
M28b
M29'Q
M29
M29a
M29b
Q
M31'32
M31
M31a
M31a1
M31a1a
M31a1b
M31a2
M31a2a
M31b
M31c
M32
M32a
M33
M33a
M33b
M33c
M34
M34a
M35
M35a
M35b
M36
M36a
M39
M39a
M40
M40a
M41
M44'52
M44
M52
M46
M47'50
M47
M50
M48
M49
M51
D


^^^ here D at the end. It's immediate ancestor is M51, it's from East India, The newly discovered M52 is also form East India while M53 is if rom West India. Haplogroup M49 - found among ancient specimens in the Euphrates valley.

Haplogroup D is clearly an Asian haplogroup and is 40,000 - 60,000 year old and has been out of Africa longer than that having followed Asian clades of M.

So even a horn African who might have significant frequencies of M1 is not a haplogroup D carrier, much less a West African of whom most African Americans are related.

Europeans are more closely related to Africans than are the Asiatic Alaskans, East Asians including Han Chinese, Turkic Uyghurs and Paiute American Indians who have the high D frequencies like like the Anzick child and Naia.

And behind that genealogically are all the South Asian clades of M, in India and so on

Blacks in America are not that, not D carriers or the later Asian clades of M which have been out of Africa 60,000 years, 15-20,000 years longer out of Africa than the ancestors of modern white Europeans
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
African AMericans are not more related to West Africans then east Africans.

African Americans are Black Native Americans, they are related to other Black Native Americans inside the South Americas

the dna stuff is a hoax and does not tell the story of Black Natives...Its meant as a cover up by the establishment.

scientist are not the way to find out what people did in the past, scientist are fake and liars they make up genetics that's fake to suit their own purpose. doctors are hacks


also






lioness picture shows 2 black people one that looks mongoloid and other that looks African they are both American Natives
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:


African Americans are Black Native Americans, they are related to other Black Native Americans inside the South Americas

---

So stop calling Black people in America "African American" They are not African.




Will Smith is not an African American, that is a hoax.

He's a Black Native American like Geronimo and Sitting Bull

No more identity crisis we are Native Americans not African,
**** Africa



 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

.

I have already discussed the fact that the D haplogroup is nothing more than haplogroup M1.

---

You discussed that but it is false.
Most Africans Americans are not M1 carriers.
Haplogroup M has it's highest diversity and frequency outside of Africa.

If you look at haplogroup D it does not follow M1.
It follows ALL the other M haplogroups that evolved outside of Africa.

Below is the phylogeny, M1 is at the beginning

D is at the very end of all the transitions that occurred in Asia, in India and elsewhere

M
M1
M1a
M1a1
M1a1a
M1a1b
M1a1b1
M1a1c
M1a1d
M1a1e
M1a1f
M1a2
M1a2a
M1a2b
M1a3
M1a3a
M1a3b
M1a4
M1a5
M1b
M1b1
M1b1a
M1b2
M1b2a
M2
M2a
M2a1
M2a2
M2a3
M2b
M2b1
M2b2
M3
M3a
M4"45
M4
M4a
M4b
M4b1
M18'38
M18
M38
M30
M30a
M30b
M30c
M30c1
M30c1a
M30c1a1
M30d
M37
M37a
M43
M45
M5
M5a
M5a1
M5a1a
M5a1b
M5a2
M5a2a
M6
M7
M7a
M7a1
M7a1a
M7a1a1
M7a1a1a
M7a1a2
M7a1a3
M7a1a4
M7a1a4a
M7a1a5
M7a1a6
M7a1a7
M7a1b
M7a2
M7a2a
M7a2b
M7b'c'd'e
M7b'd
M7b
M7b1'2
M7b1
M7b2
M7b2a
M7b2b
M7b2c
M7b3
M7b3a
M7d
M7c'e
M7c
M7c1
M7c1a
M7c1b
M7c1b1
M7c2
M7c2a
M7c3
M7c3a
M7c3b
M7c3c
M7e
M8
M8a
M8a1
M8a2
M8a2a
M8a2b
CZ
C
Z
M9
M9a'b'c'd
M9a'c'd
M9a'd
M9a
M9a1
M9a2
M9a3
M9d
M9c
M9b
E
M10'42
M10
M10a
M10a1
M10a2
M42
M42a
M11
M11a
M11b
M12'G
M12
M12a
G
M13
M13a
M13a1
M14
M15
M21
M21a'b
M21a
M21b
M21c'd
M21c
M21d
M22
M23
M25
M27
M27a
M27b
M27c
M28
M28a
M28b
M29'Q
M29
M29a
M29b
Q
M31'32
M31
M31a
M31a1
M31a1a
M31a1b
M31a2
M31a2a
M31b
M31c
M32
M32a
M33
M33a
M33b
M33c
M34
M34a
M35
M35a
M35b
M36
M36a
M39
M39a
M40
M40a
M41
M44'52
M44
M52
M46
M47'50
M47
M50
M48
M49
M51
D


^^^ here D at the end. It's immediate ancestor is M51, it's from East India, The newly discovered M52 is also form East India while M53 is if rom West India. Haplogroup M49 - found among ancient specimens in the Euphrates valley.

Haplogroup D is clearly an Asian haplogroup and is 40,000 - 60,000 year old and has been out of Africa longer than that having followed Asian clades of M.

So even a horn African who might have significant frequencies of M1 is not a haplogroup D carrier, much less a West African of whom most African Americans are related.

Europeans are more closely related to Africans than are the Asiatic Alaskans, East Asians including Han Chinese, Turkic Uyghurs and Paiute American Indians who have the high D frequencies like like the Anzick child and Naia.

And behind that genealogically are all the South Asian clades of M, in India and so on

Blacks in America are not that, not D carriers or the later Asian clades of M which have been out of Africa 60,000 years, 15-20,000 years longer out of Africa than the ancestors of modern white Europeans

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:


African Americans are Black Native Americans, they are related to other Black Native Americans inside the South Americas

---

So stop calling Black people in America "African American" They are not African.




Will Smith is not an African American, that is a hoax.

He's a Black Native American like Geronimo and Sitting Bull

No more identity crisis we are Native Americans not African,
**** Africa

---

I agree stop calling Black people in America: African American. I prefer to be called Afro-American because it acknowledges both our African and American heritages, while noting the present immigration of Africans directly from Africa into America today.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Roberta Estes found that Anzick Clovis matches to M haplogroup subclades included M1a, M1a1e, M1b1, M23, M3, M30, and M7.

These M haplogroups are found in Africa.



.

Reference:

Roberta Estes “Native American Mitochondrial Haplogroup” , https://dna-explained.com/2013/09/18/native-american-mitochondrial-haplogroups/
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The Dravidians carry M52 and D in South Asia, i.e., India. They belonged to the C-Group and only entered East India after 4000BC.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The Dravidians carry M52 and D in South Asia, i.e., India. They belonged to the C-Group and only entered East India after 4000BC.

---

Africans do not carry M52 or D therefore Dravidians aren't African

/close thread

---

Stupid Euronut. Africans don't have to carry haplogroup M52 to be related to Dravidians. Also as I stated earlier haplogroup D, is nothing more than haplogroup M1.


DNA data uniting Africans and Dravidians.
.


.


The Dravidians mainly carry the M haplogroup that is spread throughout Africa.


Below are some of the M haplogroups in India.



Check out Articles Below


Can Parallel Mutation and neutral genome selection explain Eastern African M1 consensus HVS-1 motifs in Indian M haplogroup, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3168144/

Did the Dravidian Speakers Originate in Africa

http://academia.edu.documents.s3.amazonaws.com/1773184/PossibleDraOrigin.pdf

Origin and Spread of Dravidian Speakers

http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/IJHG/IJHG-08-0-000-000-2008-Web/IJHG-08-4-317-368-2008-Abst-PDF/IJHG-08-4-325-08-362-Winder-C/IJHG-08-4-325-08-362-Winder-C-Tt.pdf

Sickle Cell Anemia in Africa and India

Dravidian speaking tribal groups share similar health problems as their African counterparts. Indian tribal groups have a high prevalence of the genetically transmitted sickle cell disorder (Mohanty, 1998; Kate, 2000). The sickle cell disorder is primarily found among the Kadaro, Irula and Pularya tribal populations (Aravanan, 1976,1980).
The sickle cell disorder is an important indicator of a possible relationship between Dravidian speaking tribal groups and Africans since it is a hereditary blood disorder resulting from a defective hemoglobin state. It has two forms homozygous (suffer) and heterozygous (carrier).
The distribution of sickle cell among tribal populations in India vary. But in many states the prevalence of sickle cell can range among the tribal population from between 10% -35% of the population (Kate, 2000). On average, if we look at the state of Maharastra, for example, as many as 10% can be carriers and 5% suffers (Kate,2000).


http://www.ispub.com/journal/the_internet_journal_of_hematology/volume_7_number_1_40/article/sickle-cell-anemia-in-india-and-africa.html

Advantageous Alleles, Parallel Adaptation, Geographic Location and Sickle Cell Anemia among Africans and Dravidians

http://www.soeagra.com/abr/vol2/12.pdf

Y-Chromosome evidence of African Origin of Dravidian Agriculture

The human leukocyte antigen (HLA) allele distribution
has been studied in India and West Africa. The HLA
system provides us with a means to define the relatedness
of varying ethnic groups. Polymorphic DNA variants
allow us to make inferences about prehistoric interactions
among populations. Using HLA we can determine the
relatedness of populations. Shankarkumar, Sridharan
and Pitchappan (2003) have done an extensive analysis
of Nadar HLA. Ellis et al (2000) has studied the Fulani
HLA system. The congruent Fulani and Nadar HLA
alleles include A*101, A*0211, A*3303 and B*370 at low
frequency. As illustrated in Table 2, the HLA with the
greatest frequency between both groups was A*03011,
B*3501 and B*51011. The presence of shared HLA
genome indicates that a genetic relationship may exist
between the Nadar and Fulani peoples. This finding
supported the linguistic (Aravanan, 1979; Upadhyaya and
Upadhyaya, 1979; Sergent, 1992; Winters, 2007, 2008),
anthropological (Aravanan, 1976, 1980; Winters, 2008).

Ychromosome haplotypes. These haplotypes include Y-hg,
T-M70 and H1. Table 3 indicates that Haplogroup T-M70 is
found among several Dravidian speaking tribal groups in
South India, including the Yerukul (or Kurru), Gonds and
Kols. Y- haplogroup T-M70 is found in the eastern and
southern regions of India (Trivedi et al., 2008). It has a
relatively high frequency in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya
Pradesh (Sharma et al., 2009). Sharma et al (2009) in a
study of 674 Dalits found that 89.39% belonged to Y-hg
K*, in relation to Dravidian speakers it was revealed that
Y-hg T-M70 was 11.1%.


Trevedi et al (2008) report that Y-hg T-M70 is predominately found among Upper Caste Dravidians at a frequency of 31.9. The highest frequency of T-M70 in the World is found among the Fulani (18%) of
West Africa. Ramana et al. (2001) claims that the discovery of H1 and H2 haplotypes among the Siddis is a “signature” of their African ancestry. As a result, the Y-hg H1 subclade frequency among Dravidian speakers can also be considered as an indicator of an African- Dravidian connection.

The H1 haplotype is found among many Dravidians.
Sengupta et al (2006) noted that the subclades H1 and
H2 were found among 26% of the Dravidian speakers in
their study, especially in Tamil Nadu. Trivedi et al (2008)
found the Y-hg H1 frequency of 22.2 among Dravidian
speakers in their study. Sharma et al (2009) reports a
frequency rate of 25.2%. Researchers make it clear that
although Africans and Dravidians share many phenotypical
traits, they are not genetically related. But the
research suggests that there are a number of HLAs and
haplotypes shared by speakers of African and Dravidian
languages.


http://www.academicjournals.org/ijgmb/PDF/pdf2010/Mar/Winters.pdf

The Ancient Indian Populations were not homogenous, http://olmec98.net/NotIndopop.pdf

High Levels of Divergence Across Indian Populations, http://olmec98.net/highlevelgenetic.mht

9bp and the relationship between African and Dravidian Speakers, http://olmec98.net/9bp_Dra.pdf

The Kushite Spread of Haplogroup R1-M173, http://olmec98.net/kushite.pdf

A comparison of Fulani and Nadar HLA, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3385173/

Abstract
Here recent studies of Nadar and Fulani HLA-A and HLA-B were compared to determine if these populations were related. The analysis revealed that the Nadar and Fulani populations share a number of unique alleles including A*101, A*0211, A*03011, A*3303, B*3501, B*3701, and B*51011. The study suggests a former residence of these diverse populations in same geographical area.

.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
I have presented the genomic evidence of the relationship between African and mongoloid Native Americans.


If I am wrong, why don't you present evidence that my findings are incorrect. Show the evidence that the genetic data I presented does not exist.

Until you do this you, and everyone else who fails to dispute the genetic evidence, are talking out of your Arse!

The DNA of North American Indians is of African origin. As a result they carry African haplogroups


Craniometric and skeletal evidence indicates that Paleoamericans were related to the Australian, Polynesian or Sub-Saharan type. This is evident in this chart below.




Neves has proven that the Paleoamericans were Black or Negroid, that's why the Amerinds or mongoloid Native Americans are grouped with the Eskimos and other Asian groups.

Even though, Mongoloid Native Americans are not related to the Paleoamericans, who were Black,they do carry Africans genes.

Novembre et al (2016) argue that Kennewick man is related more to modern Native Americans, instead of the PaleoAmericans.


Eurocentrist lie about the relationship of Naia and Kennewick man to mongoloid or contemporary Native Americans. For example, Novembre et al (2015) conclude that Kennewick man is closely related to the South American Karitiana people.

The finding by Novembre et al (2015) that genetically Kennewick man related mostly to the Karitiana falsifies their population. It is falsified because Skoglund et al (2015) found that the Karitiana and other Amozonian people in South America have an Australasian heritage. The identification of a relationship between Kennewick man and the Karitiana would continue to situate this Native American in the Paleoamerican group who was Black--not contemporary Native Americans.

The Amerindian haplogroups (hg) are descendant from the L3(M,N, & X) macrohaplogroup): ABCDN
and X. The L3 (M,N,X) marcogroup converge at np 16223.

The mtDNA haplogroups ABC and X are subclades of haplogroup N. In Table 1, we see the
distribution of haplogroup N, in the Americas.




The phylogeography of haplogroup C suggest that this American founder haplogroup differentiated in
Siberia-Asia (24). The situation is not so clear for haplogrop B2, but A2 and D1 probably differentiated after the mongoloid Native American lineages diverged after crossing the Beringa Straits (24)
[ b]
Haplogroup A2 has the motif 16111T,16223c, 16290T, 16319A and 16223C (25). Haplogroup A is
rare in Siberia (26). Interestingly, haplogroup A absent in western North America is common in parts of Central America and Northern America where the Spanish reported the existence of Black Native
American communities(1-2).[/b]

In a recent study of post-Classic Mexicans at Tlatilco , dating between 10-13 centuries the subjects carried the founder haplogroups A (36%), B (13%), C (4.3%) and D (17.4%) (27). We should note, that in Yucatec, the Mayans were predominately haplogroup A, the Maya in Hondurus, a stronghold of the Black Native Americans belonged to haplogroup C.

The mtDNA haplogroup A common to Mexicans is also found among the Mande speaking people and
some East Africans (28-29). Haplogroup A found among Mixe and Mixtecs (28).The Mande speakers
carry mtDNA haplogroup A, which is common among Mexicans (30). In addition to the Mande
speaking people of West Africa, Southeast Africa Africans also carry mtDNA haplogroup A (29).
The major American Indian male lineages include R1, C,D and Q3.There is evidence of African
admixture in the American y-chromosome haplogroups. The Q y-haplogroup has the highest
frequency among indigenous Mexicans. The frequency hg Q varies from a high of 54% for Q-M243,
and a low of 46% for QM (34).

African y-chromosome are associated with YAP+ and 9bp. The YAP-à associated with A-àG transition
at DYS271 is found among Native Americans. The YAP+ individuals include Mixe speakers (32-33).
YAP+ is often present in haplogroups (hg) C and D.
The DYS271 transition is of African origin (32).The DSY271 Alu insertion is found only in
chromosomes bearing Alu insertion (YAP+) at locus DYS287 (33). The DYS271 transition was found
among the Wayuu, Zenu and Inzano. The Mexican Native American y-chromosome bearing the
African markers is resident in haplogroups C and D (34).

R-M173 is also found in Mexico. Haplogroups R and Q are part of the CT microgroup which dates
back 56kya. Haplogroup R branches from hg Q, with the SNP M242.

The CT haplogroup has SNP mutation M168, along with P and M294. Haplogroup P (M45) has two
branches Q (M242) and R-M207 which share the common marker M45.

The M45 chromosome is subdivided by the biallelic variant M173 (35). In Africa we find P (M173),
R1b (M343) and V88; and R1b1a2 (M269).

Native Americans carry a high frequency of R-M173 (48). The predominate y-chromosome in North
America is R-M173. R-M173 is found only in the Northeastern United States along with mtDNA
haplogroup X (25%). Both haplogroups are found in Africa, but is absent in Siberia.



.
There are varying frequencies of y-chromosome M-173 in Africa and Eurasia. Whereas only between
8% and 10% of M-173 is carried by Eurasians, 82% of the carriers of this y-chromosome are found in
Africa.

This is very interesting given the presence on R-M173 is found among many American Indian groups
(48). R-M173 among the North American Algonquian group range from Ojibwe (79%), Chipewyan
(62%), Seminole (50%), Cherokee (47%), Dogrib (40%) and Papago (38%) . These Indian groups
have a long association with Africans and many live in areas were Europeans found Black Native
Americans.

In most studies of North American Indians, any evidence of African haplogroups are excluded from
all analyses (47). Exclusion of evidence of non-Amerindian admixture and non-foundational
Amerindian haplogroups is regularly left out of publications on Native American DNA (49).

The R haplogroup is carried by Mexicans. The frequency of hg R varies from Tarahumara (5.6%),
Otomi (14.3%), Yucateca Maya (10.5%). There is also a high frequency of haplogroup R among the
Ch'ol and Chontal which stood around 15% (38). The Ch'ol and Chontal also carry E1b1b (38). The
Spanish identified the Otomi as a Black Native American tribe(11).

African ancestry has been found among indigenous groups that have had no historical contact with
African slaves and thus support an African presence in America, already indicated by African
skeletons among the Olmec and Mayan people. Lisker et al, noted that "The variation of Indian
ancestry among the studied Indians shows in general a higher proportion in the more isolated groups, except for the Cora, who are as isolated as the Huichol and have not only a lower frequency but also a certain degree of black admixture. The black admixture is difficult to explain because the Cora reside in a mountainous region away from the west coast" (22).

A recent study of African - Mexican admixture yielded a frequency range between 22-41% (25). In
one study the researcher found that 3% of Native Americans showed African haplogroups (25).
Underhill et al , noted that:" One Mayan male, previously [has been] shown to have an African Y
chromosome" (31). This is very interesting because the Maya language illustrates a Mande
substratum, in addition to African genetic markers (3) Plus the Chontal were identified as a Black
Native American tribe (11).

The African haplogroups among indigenous Mexicans include L0a1a'3, L2a1, L3b, L3d, and U6a (25).
Interestingly, an individual at Laguna de los Condores, Peru dating between AD 1000-1500 carried L3 (36). Green et al also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters (25).

An important indicator of African admixture is 9bp (22,27). Haplogroup B is defined by 9bp (27) and is linked to haplogroup A.

The 9bp marker is reported among the North Mexicans. It is common among the Mixtec (27).
Some indigenous Mexicans show the G6PD deficiency. In a study of Yucatecos, Tzellzal-Tzoltzil,
Mixteca and Mestizo it was found that people on the Oaxaca coast suffered from G6PD deficiency
(22). Lisker also found G6PD deficiency in Costa Chica (22). The G6PD deficiency is usually carried
by SSA.

Indigenous Indians at Tlaxcala contains 8% African genes, but historically no Africans lived in the area (37). Researchers have also found L1, L2 & L3 clusters among many Mexicans including the Cora,
Mixtec and Zapotecs (39-41)

It is interesting to note that the proportion of African haplotypes roughly equivalent to the proportion of European haplotypes [among North Central Mexican Indians] cannot be explained by recent admixture of African Americans for the United States (41). This is especially the case for the Ojinaga area, which presently is, and historically has been largely isolated from U.S. African Americans. In the Ojinaga sample set, the frequency of African haplotypes was higher than that of European hyplotypes"(41).

Human Leukocyte Antigens (HLA) polymorphism is used to investigate ethnic relationships and
origins. Africans and Indigenous Mexicans share HLA alleles. In Table 2 we outline the
relationship. Gutherie in a study of the HLAs in indigenous American populations, found that the V
antigen of the Rhesus system, considered to be an indication of African ancestry, among Indians in
Belize and Mexico centers of Mayan civilization (45). Dr. Gutherie also noted that A*28 common
among Africans has high frequencies among Eastern Maya (45).



In addition to A*28 , there is a high frequency of HLA B*35 among Mexicans and SSA (46). The
frequency of HLA B*35 among indigenous Mexicans and SSA is high ranging between 22-31%
among SSA populations and 30-45% among MA groups (46). It is interesting to note that the Otomi, a
Mexican group identified as being of African origin and six Mayan groups show the B Allele of the ABO system that is considered to be of African origin.

It is time that researchers stop claiming the first Native Americans were not Negroes.


Reference:

• Skoglund et al (2015), Genetic evidence for two founding populations of the Americas , NATURE ,525 ( 3 SEPTEMBER):104-108. Retrieved 5/1/2016 at : http://www.nature.com/articles/nature14895.epdf?referrer_access_token=4TuRenNBfBRS7tHNMAY1qdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0N6yB-nEyCdRoL51ykMO5E9z_7mdrRF_UTJvxtpDQnayOfwuJnrOCxIhdm8_7djDnDo9O bq-VbpDatHfBozg8WnuFcDDHGC6D1QQbbgmyediLKefzmJLdqOP9IYieqkoaey_M8XA-n4Ua9CD3IbOslIqWUnXzIWbLwafl9bJMOQNAJlELt6cfooH162H7W_3B8%3D&tracking_referrer=mobile.nytimes.com
  
  1.Alcina-Franch J.(1985). Los orígenes de America. : Editorial  Alhambra.
  2. Arnaiz-Villena,A, Moscoso, J.,Serrano-Vela,I. (2006).The uniqueness of Amerindians according to HLA genes and the peopling of the Americas. http://www.inmunologia.org/Upload/Articles/6/7/678.pdf
  3.Winters,C. ( 2011 ). Olmec (Mande) Loan Words in the Mayan, Mixe-Zoque and Taino Languages. Current Research Journal of Social Sciences 3(3): 152-179.
  4. Winters,C. (2013). African Empires in Ancient America. Createspace,Amazon.com.
  5. Winters,C.(2015). Olmec Language and Literature. Createspace,Amazon.com.
  6. Winters,C. (2014). History of Blacks in America from Pre-History to 1877. Createspace,Amazon.com.
  7. Winters,C.(1977). Islam in Early North and South America. Al-Ittihad, (July-October) pp.57-67.
  8.Bazan, R.A.G. (1967). Latin America the Arabs and Islam, Muslim World, pp.284-292.
  9.Ferrand,G. (1928). Introduction a l'astrnomie nautique des Arabes, Paris. 
  10. Orozco y Berra,M (1880). Historia Antigua y de la conquista de Mexico. https://archive.org/details/historiaantigua06berrgoog
  11. Quatrefages, A de.(1889) . Introduction a L'Etudes des Races Humaines.
  12. Gaffarel,P. (2010).  Etude Sur Les Rapports De L'Amerique Et De L'Ancien Continent Avant Christophe Colomb.
  13. Marquez,C.(1956). Estudios arqueologicas y ethnograficas. Mexico.
  14. Wiercinski, A.(1969). Affinidades raciales de algunas poblaiones antiquas de Mexico, Anales de INAH, 7a epoca, tomo II, 123-143.
  15. Wiercinski,A. (1972). Inter-and Intrapopulational Racial Differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de Las Mesas, Teothuacan, Monte Alban and Yucatan Maya, XXXlX Congreso International  de Americanistas, Lima 1970 ,Vol.1, 231-252.
  16. Wiercinski,A. (1972b). An anthropological study on the origin of "Olmecs", Swiatowit ,33, 143-174.
  17. Wiercinski, A. & Jairazbhoy, R.A. (1975) "Comment", The New Diffusionist,5 (18),5.
  18. Moore,S. (1929). The Bone Change in Sickle Cell Anemia with A Note on Similar Changes Observed in Skulls of Ancient Mayan Indians, Journal  of Missouri Medical Association, 26:561
  19. Wailoo, Keith. (2002). Drawing Blood: Technology and Disease Identity in Twentieth-Century America. JHU Press.
  20. Whittington, S. L., & Reed, D. M. (1997). Bones of the Maya: Studies of ancient skeletons. Washington, D.C: Smithonian Institution Press.
  21. Lisker R,  et al.(1996). Genetic structure of autochthonous populations of Meso-america:Mexico. Am. J. Hum Biol 68:395-404.
  22. 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.
  23. Lisker,R.(1981. Estructura genetia de la poblacion Mexicana. Aspectos Medicos y Anthropologica, Mexico: Salvat.
  24. Kumar S, Bells M Z, Melton P E, Blangero J, Currah J E. (2011). Large scale mitochondrial sequencing in Mexican Americans suggest a reappraisal of Native American Origins. BMC Evolutionary Biology 11:293.
  25. Guardado-Estrada M, Juarez-Torres, E., Medina-Martinez I.(2009). A great diversity of American mitochondrial DNA ancestry is present in the Mestizo population. Jour of Hum Genet, 54:695-705.
  26. Laluezza C, Perez-Perez A, Prats E1997. Lack of Found American Mitochondrial DNA Lineages in extinct aborigines from Tierra del Fuego-Patagonia. Hum Molecular Genet, 6(1)41-46.
  27. Kemp B M, Resendez A, Roman J A, Berrelleza R, Malhi R.S.
  28. Bonilla C, Gutierrez G, Parra E J, Kline C, Shriver M D. (2005). Admixture of a rural population of the State of Guerrero,Mexico, Am J Phys Anthropol. Dec;128(4):861-9.
  29. Salas A, Richards M, De la Fe T, Lareu M V, Sobrino B, Sanchez-Diz P, Macaulay V, Carracedo A. (2002). The making of the West African mtDNA Landscape,  Am J. Hum. Genet, 71:1082-1111.
  30. Jackson B A, Wilson J L, Kirbah S, Sidney S S, Bassie L, Alle J A D, McLean D C Garvey W T.(2005). Am J Phys Anth. 128:156-163.
  31. Underhill,P.A.,Jin,L., Zemans,R., Oefner,J and Cavalli-Sforza,L.L.(1996, January). A pre-Columbian Y chromosome-specific transition and its implications for human evolutionary history, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA,93, 196-200.
  32. Lell, J T. (1997) Y chromosome polymorphisms in Native Americans and Siberian populations: Identification of Native American y chromosome haplotypes. Hum Genet, 100(5-6):536-543.
  33. Ruiz-Linares, A. (1999).Microsatellite provides evidence for y-chromosome diversity among the founders of the New World. Proc Natl Acad. Sci USA. 96(11):6312-6317
  34. Branshi N O. (1997). Origin of Amerindian y-chromosome as inferred by the analysis of six polymorphism markers. Am J. Phys, Anth, 102(1)79-89.
  35. Lell, T. (2002). The Dual Origin and Siberian affinities of Native American y-Chromosome. Am J Hum Genet., 70(1)196-206.
  36. Genetic Geneology Tools: Ancient DNA. Retrieved 3/12/2015 from :  www.y-str.org/p/ancientdna.html
  37.Crawford,M.(2001). The Origins of Native Americans: Evidence from Anthropological Genetics. Cambridge University Press.
  38. Quito A, Meraz M A, Camacho R, Schurr T, Vilar M(2013). Y-Chromosome diversity in Mayan Ch'ol and Chontal populations from Campeche and Tabasco. Retrieved 1/21/2015 from: http://www.ashg.org/2013meeting/abstracts/fulltext/fl130123072.htm
  39. Angelica Gonzalez-Oliver et al. (2001). Founding Amerindian mitochondrial DNA lineages in ancient Maya from Xcaret, Quintana Roo. Am. J Phys  Anth, 116 (3):230-235. Retreived 2/9/2006 at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/85515362/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&
  40. Maere Reidla, et al. (2003).Origin and Diffusion of mtDNA Haplogroup X.  Am J Hum Genet. 2003, 73(5): 1178-1190.
  41. Green, L.D. (2000) mtDNA Affinities of the Peoples of  North-Central Mexico.  Am J Hum Genet , 66(3) 989-998
  42. Winters,C. (2011a). Comment: Genetic Evidence of Early Migrations into America.  Retrived 2/18/2015:http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=18395
  43. Arnaiz-Villena A, Vargas-Alarcón G, Areces C, Enríquez-de-Salamanca M, Abd-El-Fatah-Khalil S, Fernández-Honrado M, Marco J, Martín-Villa JM, Rey D.(2014). Mixtec Mexican Amerindians: an HLA alleles study for America peopling, pharmacogenomics and transplantation. Immun  Invest 43(8):738-55.
  44. Allsopp, C.E.,R M Harding, C Taylor, M Bunce, D Kwiatkowski, N Anstey, D Brewster, A J McMichael, B M Greenwood, A V Hill.(1992). Interethnic genetic differentiation in Africa: HLA class I antigens in The Gambia. Am J  Hum Genet, 50(2): 411-421.
  45. Guthrie,J.L. (2006). Human lymphocyte antigens:Apparent Afro-Asiatic, southern Asian and European HLAs in indigenous American populations. Retrieved 3/3/2006 at: http://www.neara.org/Guthrie/lymphocyteantigens02.htm
  46. Winters,C. (2014) HLA-B*35 in Mexican Amerindians and African Populations. Forthcoming:  Indian J Fund and Applied Life Scien.
  47. Bolnick DA, Smith DG (2003) Unexpected patterns of mitochondrial DNA variation among Native Americans from the sou°theastern United States. Am J Phys Anth  122(4): 336-54. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.10284
  48. Winters,C.  (2011). Is Native American R Y-Chromosome of African Origin?.  Cur Res J Bio Scien, 3(6): 555-558. Retrieved 3/16/2015 at : http://www.academia.edu/1898582/Is_Native_American_R_Y-Chromosome_of_African_Origin
  49. , Ripan Malhi et al. (2006) Mitochondrial haplogroup M discovered in prehistoric North Am J Arch Scien 34 (2007),http://public.wsu.edu/~bmkemp/publications/pubs/Malhi_et_al_2007.pdf
  50. Moreno-Estrada A, Gravel S, Zakharia F, McCauley JL, Byrnes JK, et al. (2013) Reconstructing the Population Genetic History of the Caribbean. PLoS Genet 9(11): e1003925. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003925.  http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1003925
  51. Rafinesques, C.(1832). Primitive Black Nations of America.  Atlantic Journal,1(3):.85-86. https://books.google.com/books?id=BWo3AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA85&dq=Primitive+Black+Nations+of+America +by+Professor+Constantine+Rafinesques&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VVsIVZbBFcONyASP6oC4AQ&ved=0CC4Q 6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Primitive%20Black%20Nations%20of%20America%20by%20Professor%20Constantine%20R afinesques&f=false

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

haplogroup D, is nothing more than haplogroup M1.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

haplogroup D, is nothing more than haplogroup M1.

---

Haplogroup D is not the same as M1, stop lying

It is found in highest frequencies amongst people you call "mongoloid" and live in North East Asia. It is clearly not an African haplogroup

Clyde you have lost your mind....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:
[QB] Lioness,

What do you make of the anthropological claims that Europeans are 4%(on average) Neanderthal, 33% African genome(Carvalli Sforza)?

African Americans are 13% non-African

---

quote:

---

L. Cavalli-Sforza:

"it appears that Europeans are about two-thirds Asians and one-third African."
--(2001) Genes, Peoples and Languages. (Book, not article)


_____________________________________________________


C. Loring Brace:

"if we test the distribution of the widely known ABO blood-group system, then Europeans and Africans are closer to each other than either is to Chinese."
--Does Race Exist? An antagonist's perspective, 2000

---

quote:

---

“You see all of those different ancestries in each of these groups,” Bryc explains. The average African-American genome, for example, is 73.2% African, 24% European, and 0.8% Native American, the team reports online today in The American Journal of Human Genetics. Latinos, meanwhile, carry an average of 18% Native American ancestry, 65.1% European ancestry (mostly from the Iberian Peninsula), and 6.2% African ancestry.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/12/genetic-study-reveals-surprising-ancestry-many-americans

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:

African Americans are 13% non-African--which would include any Native American ancestry, yet casual observation of both groups show that for the usually focused-on phenotypical markers-color, hair, nasal index, labial index, gluteus maximus, and lactose intolerance, 90% of AAs score more than 70% of Africans. Example: Hausaa of West Africa are less lactose intolerant than AAs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:

Here's a puzzle. In gross quantitative terms, the daughters of Obama are 25% white--yet they would very easily blend in a downtown crowd in Nairobi, Kenya.

---

quote:

---

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/us/dna-gives-new-insights-into-michelle-obamas-roots.html

NYTimes


The link was established through more than two years of research into Mrs. Obama’s roots, which included DNA tests of white and black relatives. Like many African-Americans, Mrs. Obama was aware that she had white ancestry, but knew little more.

Now, for the first time, the white forebears who have remained hidden in the first lady’s family tree can be identified. And her blood ties are not only to the dead. She has an entire constellation of white distant cousins who live in Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Texas and beyond, who in turn are only now learning of their kinship to her....

All four of Mrs. Obama’s grandparents had multiracial forebears. There were Irish immigrants who nurtured their dreams in a new land and free African-Americans who savored liberty long before the Civil War. Some were classified as mulatto by the census, while others claimed Cherokee ancestry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

March 9


I have presented the genomic evidence of the relationship between African and mongoloid Native Americans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

FEBRUARY

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

March 9


I have presented the genomic evidence of the relationship between African and mongoloid Native Americans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

FEBRUARY

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.

---

^^ so are you retracting this earlier statement? Plus where did you get the 6,000 years from?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

haplogroup D, is nothing more than haplogroup M1.

---

Haplogroup D is not the same as M1, stop lying

It is found in highest frequencies amongst people you call "mongoloid" and live in North East Asia. It is clearly not an African haplogroup

Clyde you have lost your mind....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Not really, only Euronuts like you would make this claim.


The D haplogroup is nothing more than a African M haplogroup. The sub-clade D4, is the Asian name for the M1 haplogroup.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Not really, only Euronuts like you would make this claim.


The D haplogroup is nothing more than a African M haplogroup. The sub-clade D4, is the Asian name for the M1 haplogroup.

---

Haplogroup D is not M1.

You are lying

You are the only one on planet earth making such a claim

---

quote:

---

There's the 25% again, the current estimate is 24% average European ancestry for African Americans.
The genetics settles all these matters, blending in here or there doesn't change that.
Also take into account Michelle Obama's ancestry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:

quote:

---

There's the 25% again, the current estimate is 24% average European ancestry for African Americans.
The genetics settles all these matters, blending in here or there doesn't change that.
Also take into account Michelle Obama's ancestry.

---

Stay up to date with the research. The most extensive and careful research done to date is that of geneticist Sarah Tishkoff(2009).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:

One can easily make casual observations as to the comparative phenotypes as to AAs and local Africans in particular circumstances. They come as tourists--not as plentiful as the whites--but they do come. Often too as exchange students in some of Africa's universities. No differences really--except accents.

All this may boil down to the fact that some genes show dominance over others --no do doubt one of the reasons why the absurd "one drop" rule of 1/32 was instituted in the first place.

The again, there is great variability of Africa's genotypes and phenotypes. In that regard, any African American would have a phenotypical and genotypical counterpart in Africa--but not elsewhere, except in the Americas. There's always that 1% or less that defeats the general rule.

The case of Michelle Obama is moot because her actual pre-White House phenotype is emphatically West African--so other ancestries claimed could be mere embellishments

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:

The interesting point in all this is that ALL humans lived in Africa for 75% of the time that humans have existed. It's just during the last 50,000 years that some humans migrated to other parts that were climatically different. Does this mean that Europeans and Asians are 75% African?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:
In the final analysis humans view and appraise each other taxonomically. [/QB]

---

Yes, people are stupid and superficial and ignorant of science
People who now make casual observations based on casual outward observation will do so less in the future as their genes will get tested for medical purposes, such things as diagnostic and genetic therapy for disease, just to name a few, and they will realize that there are biological connections on a deeper level that are not apparent just by looking. That is the genetic taxonomy.

Or you can keep being a student of Mike University, Department of Curly Hair
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Researchers are constantly changing the names of haplogroups. This is especially true of the aDNA to make it appear that ancient populations are not related to Africans. For example, instead of just admitting that Anzick child belonged to the M haplogroup, they identify the skeleton as a carrier of haplogroup D4. At first Ust-ishim, I believe was originally said to belong to haplogroup R, but now is identified as belonging to the Q haplogroup, so it can group his population with mongoloid Native Americans, who predominately carry the Q haplogroup.

Looking at ancient DNA to determine ancient population origins can be misleading. Let’s look at dna of Ust-ishim and Clovis-Anzick man as it compares to modern populations.



Although it is clear that Ust-ishim was T2b3, the popular press claims he belonged to the haplogroup U clade. Look at the cousins of Ust-ishim it is these modern people who belong to the U clade that are his cousins. See: http://www.fi.id.au/2014/11/ust-ishim-ancient-dna-has-matches-with.html


Look at the Clovis-Anzick DNA matches to modern people.



If you look closely you can see how they match many Non-Native Americans. See http://www.fi.id.au/2014/09/clovis-anzick-1-dna-match-living-people.html


What does this mean? It means that researchers may be reporting results that have been contaminated and that they may only be giving us results that match their expectations of how the data should look.

IN relation to Anzick man Felix Immanuel noted that:

quote:

---

Just a quick recap, I processed the raw data for Clovis-Anzick-1 and uploaded into GEDMatch and to my surprise, there are matches as near as 3rd to 4th cousins. Now, that's a real problem because, the matches are to a DNA sample older than 12500 years. This is practically impossible and very mysterious.[/img] I will investigate step-by-step and see what are all the possibilities and failure points, which could solve the problem. But before that, we need to be absolutely sure that these matches are indeed valid. From the matches, I requested for phased kit and I indeed got one - Thanks to Mario Diaz and Veronica.


See: http://www.fi.id.au/search/label/Anzick

---

quote:

---

Clearly, an IBD segment of 5 cM above 500 SNPs with total IBD segments around 10+ cM cannot be 12500 years old. This is a fact and can be verified using known relationships in families and DNA companies are using these benchmarks all along for showing genetic matches. This fact is more than enough to conclude that the Clovis-Anzick-1 sample is not actually ancient. My best guess is, the infant boy's sample is just from the last century and it was wrongly labeled as 12500 years old or the sample got contaminated.


See: http://www.fi.id.au/search/label/Anzick

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Researchers are constantly changing the names of haplogroups. This is especially true of the aDNA to make it appear that ancient populations are not related to Africans. For example, instead of just admitting that Anzick child belonged to the M haplogroup, they identify the skeleton as a carrier of haplogroup D4. At first Ust-ishim, I believe was originally said to belong to haplogroup R, but now is identified as belonging to the Q haplogroup, so it can group his population with mongoloid Native Americans, who predominately carry the Q haplogroup.

Looking at ancient DNA to determine ancient population origins can be misleading. Let’s look at dna of Ust-ishim and Clovis-Anzick man as it compares to modern populations.



Although it is clear that Ust-ishim was T2b3, the popular press claims he belonged to the haplogroup U clade. Look at the cousins of Ust-ishim it is these modern people who belong to the U clade that are his cousins. See: http://www.fi.id.au/2014/11/ust-ishim-ancient-dna-has-matches-with.html


Look at the Clovis-Anzick DNA matches to modern people.



If you look closely you can see how they match many Non-Native Americans. See http://www.fi.id.au/2014/09/clovis-anzick-1-dna-match-living-people.html


What does this mean? It means that researchers may be reporting results that have been contaminated and that they may only be giving us results that match their expectations of how the data should look.

IN relation to Anzick man Felix Immanuel noted that:

quote:

---

Just a quick recap, I processed the raw data for Clovis-Anzick-1 and uploaded into GEDMatch and to my surprise, there are matches as near as 3rd to 4th cousins. Now, that's a real problem because, the matches are to a DNA sample older than 12500 years. This is practically impossible and very mysterious.[/img] I will investigate step-by-step and see what are all the possibilities and failure points, which could solve the problem. But before that, we need to be absolutely sure that these matches are indeed valid. From the matches, I requested for phased kit and I indeed got one - Thanks to Mario Diaz and Veronica.


See: http://www.fi.id.au/search/label/Anzick

---

He added that

quote:

---

Clearly, an IBD segment of 5 cM above 500 SNPs with total IBD segments around 10+ cM cannot be 12500 years old. This is a fact and can be verified using known relationships in families and DNA companies are using these benchmarks all along for showing genetic matches. This fact is more than enough to conclude that the Clovis-Anzick-1 sample is not actually ancient. My best guess is, the infant boy's sample is just from the last century and it was wrongly labeled as 12500 years old or the sample got contaminated.


See: http://www.fi.id.au/search/label/Anzick

---

The major problem in understanding the relationship between Africans, and Blacks in Asia and Native America is the constant changing of the names of haplogroups, like the change of Asian M1 into D(4), and the change of African R-1 into V88.
Another name change is the recent decision to call East Asian , R1 haplogroups, haplogroup Q because these haplogroups have just about the same mutations.
This post illustrates how ancient the DNA is not always a clear marker of actual ancient events, and how researchers can chose almost any haplogroup as representative of an ancient population..

---

^^^ This is nonsense all the links are dead

And the come from an intelligent design blog, the author doesn't even have a bio

http://fi.id.au/

Clyde this is a fail, not legit references [/qb]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Researchers are constantly changing the names of haplogroups. This is especially true of the aDNA to make it appear that ancient populations are not related to Africans. For example, instead of just admitting that Anzick child belonged to the M haplogroup, they identify the skeleton as a carrier of haplogroup D4. At first Ust-ishim, I believe was originally said to belong to haplogroup R, but now is identified as belonging to the Q haplogroup, so it can group his population with mongoloid Native Americans, who predominately carry the Q haplogroup.

Looking at ancient DNA to determine ancient population origins can be misleading. Let’s look at dna of Ust-ishim and Clovis-Anzick man as it compares to modern populations.



Although it is clear that Ust-ishim was T2b3, the popular press claims he belonged to the haplogroup U clade. Look at the cousins of Ust-ishim it is these modern people who belong to the U clade that are his cousins. See: http://www.fi.id.au/2014/11/ust-ishim-ancient-dna-has-matches-with.html


Look at the Clovis-Anzick DNA matches to modern people.



If you look closely you can see how they match many Non-Native Americans. See http://www.fi.id.au/2014/09/clovis-anzick-1-dna-match-living-people.html


What does this mean? It means that researchers may be reporting results that have been contaminated and that they may only be giving us results that match their expectations of how the data should look.

IN relation to Anzick man Felix Immanuel noted that:

quote:

---

Just a quick recap, I processed the raw data for Clovis-Anzick-1 and uploaded into GEDMatch and to my surprise, there are matches as near as 3rd to 4th cousins. Now, that's a real problem because, the matches are to a DNA sample older than 12500 years. This is practically impossible and very mysterious.[/img] I will investigate step-by-step and see what are all the possibilities and failure points, which could solve the problem. But before that, we need to be absolutely sure that these matches are indeed valid. From the matches, I requested for phased kit and I indeed got one - Thanks to Mario Diaz and Veronica.


See: http://www.fi.id.au/search/label/Anzick

---

He added that

quote:

---

Clearly, an IBD segment of 5 cM above 500 SNPs with total IBD segments around 10+ cM cannot be 12500 years old. This is a fact and can be verified using known relationships in families and DNA companies are using these benchmarks all along for showing genetic matches. This fact is more than enough to conclude that the Clovis-Anzick-1 sample is not actually ancient. My best guess is, the infant boy's sample is just from the last century and it was wrongly labeled as 12500 years old or the sample got contaminated.


See: http://www.fi.id.au/search/label/Anzick

---

The major problem in understanding the relationship between Africans, and Blacks in Asia and Native America is the constant changing of the names of haplogroups, like the change of Asian M1 into D(4), and the change of African R-1 into V88.
Another name change is the recent decision to call East Asian , R1 haplogroups, haplogroup Q because these haplogroups have just about the same mutations.
This post illustrates how ancient the DNA is not always a clear marker of actual ancient events, and how researchers can chose almost any haplogroup as representative of an ancient population..

---

^^^ This is nonsense all the links are dead

And the come from an intelligent design blog, the author doesn't even have a bio

http://fi.id.au/

Clyde this is a fail, not legit references

---

[/QB]

---

quote:

---

[QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,:
[QB] ^^^Above was written by a software designer "Felix" with no education in genetics who has a blog
( He says) "This is purely my opinion on what I can see but I could very well be wrong."
speaking about various details Clyde doesn't understand and is using this to dismiss any DNA analysis that he doesn't like

---

quote:

---

If your 13% is correct then she could be 13% European, you can't tell by looking. If someone looks a particular was it doesn't change their genetic ancestry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:
Europeans must necessarily carry over 30% of African genes.

---

why?
 

---

Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
Given the 50,000 years or so that Europeans have been out of Africa that would be enough time for new mutations to arise. But the many genes that would not be affected by the climatic changes would still remain--as in the case of the blood types O, A, B, AB. They evolved first within Africa but still exist with Europeans.

The genetic distance between Africans and Europeans is one of 16.6 compared to 9.7 for East Asia. This would mean that East Asia has contributed some 66% of the European genome. The other 33% would be from Africa. These results are based on polymorphic genetic matchings founded on the likely routes that populations took as they migrated out of Africa.


The genetic distance between Africa and Europe would be much larger were there no genetic exchanges. Given that the original migratory populations were from Africa, that would mean that Europeans have maintained 33% of the original African genomic cluster.
 

---

Posted by Red, White, and Blue + Christian (Member # 10893) on :
 
Everyone living on planet Earth belongs to mtDNA Macrohaplogroup L.

This is divided into L1 to L6.

The people who left Africa and populated the rest of the world came from L3.

L3 can be divided into M and N.

Most people in Asia belong to Macrohaplogroup M.

The M haplogroup is divided between M1 and M51.

The geneticists often relabel these dvisions when there are many people who have the same clade.

C,D, E,G and Z are subdivisions of haplogroup M. They could have been relabeled Mxxxx.

Most Native Americans have C or D, but these are just subdivisions of Macrohaplogroup M. They belong to Macrohaplogroup M. In other words, they are Asian.

The first branch to break off from the M branch of the African tree is M1. This clade is found in Africa and Asia. The debate is did M1 and therefore Macrohaplogroup M begin on the African continent of is Asia. Most of the subdivisions of M exist in Asia.

Wikipedia has a page which explains this clearly.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_M_(mtDNA)

===================================

Dr. Winters said not all Native Americas descend from Siberians/East Asians from the NW Bering strait. He is correct. Scientists have found that some South Americans have roots in Oceania and most of them also belong to the Macrohaplogroup M.
 

---

Posted by Red, White, and Blue + Christian (Member # 10893) on :
 
Mysterious link emerges between Native Americans and people half a globe away
By Michael BalterJul. 21, 2015 , 1:15 PM
The Americas were the last great frontier to be settled by humans, and their peopling remains one of the great mysteries for researchers. This week, two major studies of the DNA of living and ancient people try to settle the big questions about the early settlers: who they were, when they came, and how many waves arrived. But instead of converging on a single consensus picture, the studies, published online in Science and Nature, throw up a new mystery: Both detect in modern Native Americans a trace of DNA related to that of native people from Australia and Melanesia. The competing teams, neither of which knew what the other was up to until the last minute, are still trying to reconcile and make sense of each other’s data.

“Both models … see in the Americas a subtle signal from” Australo-Melanesians, notes Science co-author David Meltzer, an archaeologist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. “A key difference is when and how it arrived in the New World.” The Nature team concludes it came in one of two early waves of migration into the continent, whereas the Science team concludes it came much later, and was unrelated to the initial peopling.

For the Science paper, nearly 4 years in the making, researchers sequenced 31 complete and 79 partial genomes from people in North and South America, Siberia, and Oceania. They compared these with previously sequenced genomes of three ancient skeletons: the 24,000-year-old Mal’ta child from Siberia, the 12,600-year-old Anzick child from Montana, and the 4000-year-old Saqqaq individual from Greenland. The team examined the genetic differences among their samples to determine how long ago various populations diverged, using the ancient genomes to calibrate this DNA clock. They concluded that all Native Americans, ancient and modern, stem from a single source population in Siberia that split from other Asians around 23,000 years ago and moved into the now-drowned land of Beringia. After up to 8000 years in Beringia—a slightly shorter stop than some researchers have suggested (Science, 28 February 2014, p. 961)—they spread in a single wave into the Americas and then split into northern and southern branches about 13,000 years ago (see map, below).

That’s a largely familiar picture of the migration, albeit with much more precise dating. But the Science team also found a surprising dash of Australo-Melanesian DNA in some living Native Americans, including those of the Aleutian Islands and the Surui people of Amazonian Brazil. Some anthropologists had previously suggested an Australo-Melanesian link. They noted that certain populations of extinct Native Americans had long, narrow skulls, resembling those of some Australo-Melanesians, and distinct from the round, broad skulls of most Native Americans. In the so-called Paleoamerican model, Walter Neves of the University of Sao Pãolo in Brazil and Mark Hubbe of Ohio State University, Columbus, argue that these people descended from an early wave of migration that was separate from the one that gave rise to today’s Native Americans, and drew on a different source population in Asia. A similar claim was made for the Kennewick Man, the iconic 8500-year-old skeleton from Washington state, but was refuted when his genome was published by this team last month: He is related only to Native Americans (see http://scim.ag/ancientone).

The Science results also counter the Paleoamerican model. When the team sequenced the DNA of 17 individuals from the extinct South American populations with the distinctive skulls, they found no trace of Australo-Melanesian ancestry. “The analysis refutes a very simplistic view of [skull] variation,” comments anthropologist Rolando Gonzalez-Jose of the National Scientific and Technical Research Council in Puerto Madryn, Argentina.



So how did living South Americans get a dose of this Australo-Melanesian DNA? “A possible explanation is that the connection reflects more recent gene flow,” says Science co-lead author Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen. By that he doesn’t mean boats crossing the Pacific, as some researchers had earlier speculated. Instead, Willerslev contends that the ancestors of some of today’s South Americans might have mixed with Asian populations related to today’s Australo- Melanesians and carried those genes into the Americas during a well-established later wave of migration from Asia that also peopled the Aleutian Islands (Science, 13 January 2012, p. 158).

Hubbe, however, counters that the study could have missed telltale DNA in the ancient populations because its sample size is “extremely small.” geneticist David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston and leader of the Nature team, agrees, noting that the genomes from the 17 ancient relict populations are incomplete and provide very low coverage.

His own paper also finds this mysterious Australo-Melanesian DNA in some of the same modern populations but reaches a different conclusion about its source. His team analyzed partial genome sequences of 106 Native Americans from 25 populations in Central and South America, and compared them with DNA data from 197 populations from outside the Americas. They found that some Amazonians, including the Surui people, shared about 1% to 2% of their ancestry with present-day native people from Australia, New Guinea, and the Andaman Islands. Differences in the shared DNA suggest this ancestry did not come directly from these populations, the team concluded, but through a now extinct population they call “Population Y” that may have lived somewhere in East Asia and contributed genes to both very early Paleoamericans and to Australo-Melanesians. Because the Amazonian groups are only distantly related to Population Y, the team concludes that this represents an ancient rather than recent genetic contribution that arrived in an early “pulse of migration” to the Americas.

And yet Reich says his data, like those of the Science team, clash with the classic Paleoamerican model, which postulates a major, more direct genetic contribution from Australo-Melanesians. In that sense, Reich says, “the two papers are not in disagreement.”

Researchers agree that more genomes from modern and ancient Native Americans are needed to unravel the mysteries. For now, says anthropologist Jennifer Raff of the University of Texas, Austin, the two papers throw open an “incredibly exciting” window on the ancestors of today’s Native Americans, as they sat poised to enter the New World.

from:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/mysterious-link-emerges-between-native-americans-and-people-half-globe-away
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 



Move it Up!
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Move up
 

---