quote:

---

"Soon...the American (slave) trade developed. A strong, unchecked demand for brute labor in the West Indies and on the continent of America grew until it culminated in the eighteenth century, when Negro slaves were crossing the Atlantic at the rate of fifty to one hundred thousand a year. This called for slave raiding on a scale that drew upon every part of Africa-- upon the west coast, the western and Egyptian Sudan, the valley of the Congo, Abyssinia, the lake regions, the east coast, and Madagascar. Not simply the degraded and weaker types of Negroes were seized, but the strong Bantu, the Mandingo and Songhay, the Nubian and Nile Negroes, the Fula, and even the Asiatic Malay, were represented in the raids...

---

quote:

---

The natural desire to avoid a painful subject has led historians to gloss over the details of the slave trade and leave the impression that it was a local west-coast phenomenon and confined to a few years. It was, on the contrary, continent wide and centuries long and an economic, social, and political catastrophe probably unparalleled in human history..."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonis:
Then how come the genes analyzed on AA's shows predominatly west/central/and south east origin, if now people were raided throughout the whole of African continent for the new world?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonis:
Then how come the genes analyzed on AA's shows predominatly west/central/and south east origin, if now people were raided throughout the whole of African continent for the new world?

---

I am an African-American and my genes have never been analyzed, nor have those of the countless African-Americans that I know and have known. Is this based upon some sort of a fields poll??

You, like most confused individuals, seem to want to put Africans into neat little rigid compartments as if Africans are not a mobile group of peoples, rather than accept the historical reality that western Africans have moved to the east; eastern Africans have moved both westward and southward. The Ancient Egyptians originated, like most Africans, in the regions of the Great Lakes; how did they end up so far north? The Batutsi of Rwanda and Burundi did not always inhabit those territories. When the Europeans began to settle in the area of south Africa, the Bantu migrations were still pushing southwards...
Your approach to African history, ethnicites, and migrations is too simplistic.

If I were engaged in a paternity suit and I wanted to determine whether or not the child was mine, I would demand a DNA test. But, there is NO DNA test that can tell me the extent and the individuality of all of my African ancestors:

Prior to DNA, blood tests were a less reliable indicator of parantage, but useful. Blood tests also showed that West Africans and Upper Egyptians had the same blood types; but neither blood tests nor DNA can tell me, or anyone else the various peoples that came together to generate me!

If I were to trace my ancestry to "Kunta Kente" in the region that is now withing the country of Senegal, I would not be so naive as to believe that he is my "Adam" but merely only one of them; I hope this is not over your head...
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yom:
So are you saying that AAs with non-West African ancestry don't give blood samples (or that these people are rejected as outliers in every single case)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yom:
So are you saying that AAs with non-West African ancestry don't give blood samples (or that these people are rejected as outliers in every single case)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonis:
Then how come the genes analyzed on AA's shows predominatly west/central/and south east origin, if now people were raided throughout the whole of African continent for the new world?

---

I am an African-American and my genes have never been analyzed, nor have those of the countless African-Americans that I know and have known. Is this based upon some sort of a fields poll??

You, like most confused individuals, seem to want to put Africans into neat little rigid compartments as if Africans are not a mobile group of peoples, rather than accept the historical reality that western Africans have moved to the east; eastern Africans have moved both westward and southward. The Ancient Egyptians originated, like most Africans, in the regions of the Great Lakes; how did they end up so far north? The Batutsi of Rwanda and Burundi did not always inhabit those territories. When the Europeans began to settle in the area of south Africa, the Bantu migrations were still pushing southwards...
Your approach to African history, ethnicites, and migrations is too simplistic.

If I were engaged in a paternity suit and I wanted to determine whether or not the child was mine, I would demand a DNA test. But, there is NO DNA test that can tell me the extent and the individuality of all of my African ancestors:

Prior to DNA, blood tests were a less reliable indicator of parantage, but useful. Blood tests also showed that West Africans and Upper Egyptians had the same blood types; but neither blood tests nor DNA can tell me, or anyone else the various peoples that came together to generate me!

If I were to trace my ancestry to "Kunta Kente" in the region that is now withing the country of Senegal, I would not be so naive as to believe that he is my "Adam" but merely only one of them; I hope this is not over your head...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KaBa Un Hru:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonis:
Then how come the genes analyzed on AA's shows predominatly west/central/and south east origin, if now people were raided throughout the whole of African continent for the new world?

---

I am an African-American and my genes have never been analyzed, nor have those of the countless African-Americans that I know and have known. Is this based upon some sort of a fields poll??

You, like most confused individuals, seem to want to put Africans into neat little rigid compartments as if Africans are not a mobile group of peoples, rather than accept the historical reality that western Africans have moved to the east; eastern Africans have moved both westward and southward. The Ancient Egyptians originated, like most Africans, in the regions of the Great Lakes; how did they end up so far north? The Batutsi of Rwanda and Burundi did not always inhabit those territories. When the Europeans began to settle in the area of south Africa, the Bantu migrations were still pushing southwards...
Your approach to African history, ethnicites, and migrations is too simplistic.

If I were engaged in a paternity suit and I wanted to determine whether or not the child was mine, I would demand a DNA test. But, there is NO DNA test that can tell me the extent and the individuality of all of my African ancestors:

Prior to DNA, blood tests were a less reliable indicator of parantage, but useful. Blood tests also showed that West Africans and Upper Egyptians had the same blood types; but neither blood tests nor DNA can tell me, or anyone else the various peoples that came together to generate me!

If I were to trace my ancestry to "Kunta Kente" in the region that is now withing the country of Senegal, I would not be so naive as to believe that he is my "Adam" but merely only one of them; I hope this is not over your head...

---

Majority of African Americans have not taken dna test ... I can never understand how they can come up with these numbers ... and say that 28% of African American have European dna when only 10% of European Americans had slaves and even less raped their slaves ... and even less had babies ... lol ...

What they are doing is gathering African Americans who care european features (if theres a such thing) and doing these test ...

Who knows?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:

African Americans clearly rejected the caste system based upon skin color which was adopted in Haiti and Jamaica, and imposed in Apartheid South Africa, Brazil, and (as anyone who has been reading this forum knows) more subtly in modern Egypt, the Sudan, and northern Africa.

---

On the contrary I think it was European americans who rejected the system as opposed to African Americans as they were the authers of the "one-drop" rule of race. I also think that if you wanted to you could find many places in the U.S. where blacks of a lighter skin colour were the elite and tried to preserve their light skin as a marker of their eliteness.
 

---

Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
 
Wally you need to provide more evidence that slaves were raided throughout the whole of the African continent for the new world, since this is something new to most people. W.e.b. Dubois wrote that book long time ago thus it's outdated and obsolete. Do you have any fresh material that can support this? I think people might find this quite interesting.
 

---

Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
 
What we are seeing is that West Africa was the main area of slaves bound for the Americas. At that time, pastoralism and nomadism accounted for other than West Africa/Southern Africa imprints (DNA) in that people captured in war between tribes often took the women as their own!
So an Ibo or Yoruba who through raids, captured Fulo/a, Hausa will show the mtDNA (maternal) as part of lineage, OR, im many cases, on return from a raid, the Europeans who captured them, took the victor and the captive to the ship to be taken to another location!
In the cases of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Turkey, Persia, East Africa was the preferred location of slaves! keeping in mind that Turkey was the default leader of Islam as a result of the defeat of the Arab tribes over the last 300 years!
 

---

Posted by KaBa Un Hru (Member # 4547) on :
 
I amongst some African American who do have mixed heritage accept that and live with it comfortably . It is no secret that I'm African American with a strong Native American presence and if I had the link to that discussion I would post it. I am one of those AA's who would fall under European because of my Native American heritage and how they classify European ... Tho my forefathers on that side of the family HATE AND HATED EUROPEANS!

Never the less, I don't understand how someone could grab a small number of AA's and tell them that their population of 41 million is 28% European. Secondly, what form of European are they talking about? Are they talking about their so called European definition of themeselves or are they talking about the Black European lol....

My understanding of the slave trade is that the Eastern Africans made it to the West Coast from the Arab/Islamic slave trade from East Africa to North Africa. From north Africa downward is where the African traveled in search for their freedom.

African Americans are a combination of many Africans. We are comprised of West, Central, North, South and East coast Africans. That is how it goes. I love my West African heritage but as someone on this forum pointed out ... African Americans will have a hard time finding their actual village because AA's are mixed with many villages from Africa.

Its not self-hatred, it called getting to the truth behind lies. In a world where information is controlled by Eurocentrics, it is imperative to re-examine every subject; that includes the actual populations from which AA's come from. Maybe this is not the forum to make this exploration, yet you would be a fool if you believe that the a strong percentage of the Ancient Egyptian population, after their defeat, didn't escape and find their ways to South, North, Central, other parts of the East and West Coast Africa.

Self-hatred, naw ... West Coast African have always held the knowledge, but never used it to destroy nature, but co-lived with it in peace and unity. The Yoruba's is the sister/brother teaching to that of the Egyptian ... The Dogon's have their understanding and I'm more then confident that the Peul, Olof, Ba-ntu (Neteru), South African Khoisan's and many other cultures prior to Islamic invasions had the knowledge and traditions of higher understandings.

The Valley of Kings recorded their knowledge, visage, and other things, on great stones and statues. West Africans were an oral traditionalist society and that doesn't make them any less knowledgeable in any respect. They were loyal to the ideal of Oral traditions. So please don't think for one moment that we favor East Africa over West Africa, its just that the East African carved their knowledge in stones and we have access to that information; information of the ancients unlike that of West Africa. Yet that is starting to change all over Africa with finding like this:



70,000 year old snake worship ... Egyptians wore snakes on their crowns ... Interesting isn't it.

There are many other findings but I suggest you go to http://www.archaeologica.org/NewsPage.htm .

In conclusion: Egypt has ancient information an we are all here to learn it with some of us AA's having some ancient connection to it. Yet, that doesn't mean we hate or disown West Africa as an attempt of self hatred!

Peace!~

[ 18. April 2007, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: Horus_Den_1 ]
 

---

Posted by KaBa Un Hru (Member # 4547) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kifaru:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:

African Americans clearly rejected the caste system based upon skin color which was adopted in Haiti and Jamaica, and imposed in Apartheid South Africa, Brazil, and (as anyone who has been reading this forum knows) more subtly in modern Egypt, the Sudan, and northern Africa.

---

On the contrary I think it was European americans who rejected the system as opposed to African Americans as they were the authers of the "one-drop" rule of race. I also think that if you wanted to you could find many places in the U.S. where blacks of a lighter skin colour were the elite and tried to preserve their light skin as a marker of their eliteness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KaBa Un Hru:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kifaru:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:

African Americans clearly rejected the caste system based upon skin color which was adopted in Haiti and Jamaica, and imposed in Apartheid South Africa, Brazil, and (as anyone who has been reading this forum knows) more subtly in modern Egypt, the Sudan, and northern Africa.

---

On the contrary I think it was European americans who rejected the system as opposed to African Americans as they were the authers of the "one-drop" rule of race. I also think that if you wanted to you could find many places in the U.S. where blacks of a lighter skin colour were the elite and tried to preserve their light skin as a marker of their eliteness.

---

Have to disagree ... It was the Europeans that tried to divide us and keep us conquered ... Why would they want to unite us ... which is something that could hurt them in the long run?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by yazid904:
... OR, im many cases, on return from a raid, the Europeans who captured them,
took the victor and the captive to the ship to be taken to another location!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Kifaru is correct.

USA Euros had no use for the gradation system used
in the Caribbean and Luso-Hispanic America. Due to
the population ratio and wide expanse of their
sovereign territory, they needed no buffer between
themselves and a non-existant bulk black population.

Thus their invention of one drop social negroes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KaBa Un Hru:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kifaru:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:

African Americans clearly rejected the caste system based upon skin color which was adopted in Haiti and Jamaica, and imposed in Apartheid South Africa, Brazil, and (as anyone who has been reading this forum knows) more subtly in modern Egypt, the Sudan, and northern Africa.

---

On the contrary I think it was European americans who rejected the system as opposed to African Americans as they were the authers of the "one-drop" rule of race. I also think that if you wanted to you could find many places in the U.S. where blacks of a lighter skin colour were the elite and tried to preserve their light skin as a marker of their eliteness.

---

Have to disagree ... It was the Europeans that tried to divide us and keep us conquered ... Why would they want to unite us ... which is something that could hurt them in the long run?

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonis:
Wally you need to provide more evidence that slaves were raided throughout the whole of the African continent for the new world, since this is something new to most people. W.e.b. Dubois wrote that book long time ago thus it's outdated and obsolete. Do you have any fresh material that can support this? I think people might find this quite interesting.

---

This is the most obtuse of arguments;
The statements I quoted from Dr. Dubois explains it clearly the process of the enslavement of Africans and in the second quote he explains why this information may be 'new' to 'most' people.

The most obtuse of your statements is that "Dubois wrote that book long time ago thus it's outdated and obsolete"; this is a straw man argument.
Facts or correct information never become outdated or obsolete; whether it is written in 1870 or 2007 - Africans were enslaved...It's that simple, but many use this 'argument' of 'outdated' to disparage information that they personally disagree with; it's merely a dodge.

While there's plenty of other material that corroborates Dubois (did you think he made all of this up?) it's not necessary to provide to most who are following this topic; but for those who need extra help there's plenty of material available on the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade; Colonialism; Imperialism; Slavery. There's the library, the internet, book stores...
 

---

Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Stop giving the white man his god complex.

Infintesimally few Africans were directly enslaved
by Euros. It's a myth that Euros roamed unfettered
throughout the Atlantic shores of Africa raiding
as they pleased.

Africans made big business from the triangular trade.
Euros were often made to wait for weeks on end,
spending resource on food, drink, lodging, and
entertainment while a deal for slaves was brokered.

---

Here's another excellent analysis of the African slave trade that many may find 'new.' And it's written by an author in the year 2007!
 

---

Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
 
also, the trade in humans was set up pretty much in the same way that the exploitation of Africa's mineral resources were; all roads constructed by the colonialists led directly to the ports to facilitate the exportation of minerals and resources from deep within the African interior...
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
Why doesn't it surprise me that I couldn't GOOGLE
the below information though it was posted only
60 days ago?

Reposting the 14 February, 2007 06:57 PM entry to
the OT: In Light of Black History Month... thread.
================================================

What follows is a mostly, though not completely, accurate essay.
Bracketed words and hi-liting are my editing.
Otherwise it appears as originally presented on www.netnoir.com in 1997.

quote:

---

THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE
The First Slav[ing] Expeditions to [West] Africa
by Anthony A. Lee


Kidnapping [people] from the African coast was part of European
practice even before Portuguese ships had explored the coast of
the continent or discovered a new route to India. One of the
first expeditions to the Senegal River, led by the Portuguese
in 1444, brutally seized the black residents of several off-shore
islands near the river and carried them off to be sold as slaves.
Other expeditions from Europe about this time did more or less
the same.

But it was not long before African armies became aware of the
new dangers, and Portuguese ships began to meet their match.

For example, in 1446, two years later, a ship commanded by Nuno
Tristão attempted to land in the Senegal region. It was attacked
by African fighters in canoes, and the crew of the ship was
wiped out. And in 1447, a Danish raider commanding a Portuguese
ship was killed, along with most of his crew, when local African
boats attacked.

Although African vessels -- mostly canoes -- were not designed
for high-seas navigation, they were fully capable of protecting
the coast, even in the 15th century. As a result, in 1456, the
king of Portugal dispatched his ambassador, Diogo Gomes, to
negotiate treaties of peace and trade with the African rulers
along the coast. From that point on, and for 400 years, the
African slave trade was conducted as a matter of international
commerce among equals. The notion of European sailors roaming
through [West] Africa at will, kidnapping as many [people] as they
wanted and shipping them off to America, is completely false
-- and an insult to Africans, who kept European armies off
their soil until the beginning of the 20th century.

Of course, this fact of history makes the Atlantic slave trade
a bit more problematic, from a moral perspective. It is not
simply a question of black and white. Slavery was well known
in [many] African societies, as much as it was a fact of life
everywhere else in the world during those times.

As soon as Diogo Gomes' diplomatic expedition to West Africa
had succeeded, the export of slaves began to number in the
thousands. During the bloody course, perhaps 10 or 15 million
Africans had been delivered as slaves to the New World, and
perhaps just as many more had died in the process. These [people]
were captured in Africa by Africans, shipped to the African coast
by Africans, and only then sold to European traders in trade ships
to begin the dreaded Middle Passage to America. African kings and
rulers were active and willing participants in the slave trade,
which made them rich[er], and which could not have existed
without their full cooperation and support.

Indeed, when African kingdoms decided to stop trading in slaves
-- for their own reasons -- there was no way for European nations
to force them to continue. The earliest example of this is the
Kingdom of Benin on the West African coast (in what is now Nigeria)
In the 1520's this state began to restrict the sale of slaves,
finally cutting it off entirely by about 1550. This was probably
not done for moral reasons, however. Records from this period show
that the kingdom was becoming wealthi[er] from the export of cloth
and pepper. Although it is only a guess, we can imagine that slaves
were needed within Benin itself to produce these valuable products
which could bring more wealth to the king than the sale of human
beings.

As uncomfortable as this aspect of black history may be, it
at least explodes the myth of a "dark," helpless and ignorant
African continent that was always at the mercy of European
greed. Nothing could be further from the truth. The more we
learn about African history, going back even to the middle
ages, the more we learn that Africans were full and active
participants in the world -- on both sides of the Atlantic.

---

quote:

---

Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 07:07:16 -0700 (PDT)

From: "shomarka keita" <shomarka_omar_y_keita@yahoo.com>

Subject: Re: The African diversity of African-American ancestry and connections to Nile Valley Civilization

To: *Mansa Musa* <Email Address Witheld>


Good morning,

Please go to Pubmed Entrez, and search African Americans. The biological heterogeneity of which we spoke refers the historical infomation that places Afro North and South American origins in the Senegambia region, the Akan peoples regions, the west Cenral African regons (Bantu speakers), southeastern Africa (see the Braziian data) and some Madagascar. If you look at the Gwen Midlo Hall's book on ethnicities in America you will see the evidence of different sources.

I know of NO study or historical datat that shows that folk were brought from Ethiopia/Somalia/Kenya or northern Africa (including the Nile Vallley) to the US.
There is no evidence that I know about that says that the Enslaved Africans of the trans-Atlantic trade came from the Nile Valley or Horn of Africa.

IT is true that some of the mtDNA results done by ancestry businesses have been coming up with some unexpected results--this does not mean necessarily that these folk came straight from a particular region. It may speak to certain variations actually having either come back into Africa a long time ago, or having originated there in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:
Hello everyone.

This is a subject that has always interested me because it deals with a personal topic. Where "we" come from.

I myself attempted to contact Dr. Rick Kittles on the issue of AA ancestry outside of West Africa (especially the Nile Valley/Horn-East African region). He did not reply but I did get a response from Dr. Shomarka Keita. This is what he said:

quote:

---

Good morning,

Please go to Pubmed Entrez, and search African Americans. The biological heterogeneity of which we spoke refers the historical infomation that places Afro North and South American origins in the Senegambia region, the Akan peoples regions, the west Cenral African regons (Bantu speakers), southeastern Africa (see the Braziian data) and some Madagascar. If you look at the Gwen Midlo Hall's book on ethnicities in America you will see the evidence of different sources.

I know of NO study or historical datat that shows that folk were brought from Ethiopia/Somalia/Kenya or northern Africa (including the Nile Vallley) to the US.
There is no evidence that I know about that says that the Enslaved Africans of the trans-Atlantic trade came from the Nile Valley or Horn of Africa.

IT is true that some of the mtDNA results done by ancestry businesses have been coming up with some unexpected results--this does not mean necessarily that these folk came straight from a particular region. It may speak to certain variations actually having either come back into Africa a long time ago, or having originated there in the first place.

---

It was not the answer I wanted but that is what he wrote.

Certainly Dubois view of AA's being Pan-African people in the sense of being of multiethnic ancestry is accurate but I have not encountered evidence that the subjects of the middle passage had as widespread of origins as he implied. I would have thought that Africans coming from these parts of Africa was, while miniscule, atleast traceable to some degree but evidence for the claim that African-American ancestry has complete continental variance remains elusive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannosaurus:
How did you get Keita's e-mail address?

---

Through stealth and finesse.
 

---

Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
 

quote:

---

Why doesn't it surprise me that I couldn't GOOGLE
the below information though it was posted only
60 days ago?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannosaurus:
How did you get Keita's e-mail address?

---

Through stealth and finesse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannosaurus:
Thank you. Can you please provide his address for me? I want to have a discussion with him about Egyptians and Nubians (I am still debating Matt at Empires Aeon, and I think the word of an actual physical anthropologist would certainly be a major tide-turner).

---

I edited some email address info into the quote a little while ago which includes his email.
 

---

Posted by Technical Anomal (What Box? (Member # 10819) on :
 
Yonis:

How is the book obsolete?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannosaurus:
How did you get Keita's e-mail address?

---

Through stealth and finesse.

---

quote:

---

Wally:
Africans were enslaved...It's that simple , but many use this 'argument' of 'outdated' to disparage information that they personally disagree with; it's merely a dodge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonis:
Wally you need to provide more evidence that slaves were raided throughout the whole of the African continent for the new world, since this is something new to most people. W.e.b. Dubois wrote that book long time ago thus it's outdated and obsolete. Do you have any fresh material that can support this? I think people might find this quite interesting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:
Hello everyone.

This is a subject that has always interested me because it deals with a personal topic. Where "we" come from.

I myself attempted to contact Dr. Rick Kittles on the issue of AA ancestry outside of West Africa (especially the Nile Valley/Horn-East African region). He did not reply but I did get a response from Dr. Shomarka Keita. This is what he said:

quote:

---

Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 07:07:16 -0700 (PDT)

From: "shomarka keita" <shomarka_omar_y_keita@yahoo.com>

Subject: Re: The African diversity of African-American ancestry and connections to Nile Valley Civilization

To: *Mansa Musa* <Email Address Witheld>


Good morning,

Please go to Pubmed Entrez, and search African Americans. The biological heterogeneity of which we spoke refers the historical infomation that places Afro North and South American origins in the Senegambia region, the Akan peoples regions, the west Cenral African regons (Bantu speakers), southeastern Africa (see the Braziian data) and some Madagascar. If you look at the Gwen Midlo Hall's book on ethnicities in America you will see the evidence of different sources.

I know of NO study or historical datat that shows that folk were brought from Ethiopia/Somalia/Kenya or northern Africa (including the Nile Vallley) to the US. .

IT is true that some of the mtDNA results done by ancestry businesses have been coming up with some unexpected results-- this does not mean necessarily that these folk came straight from a particular region . It may speak to certain variations actually having either come back into Africa a long time ago, or having originated there in the first place.

---

It was not the answer I wanted but that is what he wrote.

Certainly Dubois view of AA's being Pan-African people in the sense of being of multiethnic ancestry is accurate but I have not encountered evidence that the subjects of the middle passage had as widespread of origins as he implied. I would have thought that Africans coming from these parts of Africa was, while miniscule, atleast traceable to some degree but evidence for the claim that African-American ancestry has complete continental variance remains elusive .

---

 

---

Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
 
You all have provided some good and some interesting links on the topic.
On one of the links, provided by Kemson, there's an interesting sidebar advertisement that reads:

quote:

---

Trace Your African Roots
Benin? Sudan? Nigeria? Discover Your Genetic Heritage $199

---

quote:

---

It is extremely important to note that when we talk about the beginnings of slavery, all concepts of "Countries", as defined by European made invisible lines must disappear. In doing so, it becomes clear to anyone using their commonsense that a tribe located in one region today is part of a much larger tribe in the 1500's...

---

quote:

---

One must accept the historical reality that African peoples have always been a mobile group, constantly moving from one region to another; western Africans, most of whom originated from the east and central Africa, have also moved back to the east; eastern Africans have moved both westward and southward. The Ancient Egyptians originated, like most Africans, in the regions of the Great Lakes; how did they end up so far north? The Batutsi of Rwanda and Burundi did not always inhabit those territories. When the Europeans began to settle in the area of south Africa, the Bantu migrations were still pushing southwards...

---

a) If you have one Wolof ancestor (and some of the links have indicated its likelihood) , that Wolof's ancestry can be traced back to the Nile valley, which means so is yours; (also a Yoruba ancestor, also a...)

b) The Bantu migrations, which included the Zulu, does not mean that these migrations were en masse, either at the start or the 'finish', and there are always fragments of these migrating peoples who settle along the path of migration: this makes non-sense of this Gates guy who says "there wasn't one Zulu" enslaved and brought to America. (bourgeois b...s...)
...and...

quote:

---

Evergreen Writes:
The complete genetic history of AA will remain a mystery until:
1) Statistically significant AA and African samples are taken
2) Broad samples from African regions such as Sudan, Chad, Niger, southern Libya, southern Algeria and western Sudan are obtained
3) The phylogeny of the y-chromosome lineage E3a is complete

---

quote:

---

Here's all the analysis we need to know about the origins of African-Americans, from one of the twentieth century's greatest African scholars, Dr. WEB DuBois:

---

quote:

---

Lamin:
One might note too that the people who are now called West Africans have only been in the West Africa region for at most 3,000 years. There have been migrations Westward and Southward in relatively recent times. The recent so-called Bantu expansion from West-Central Africa to Southern Africa testifies to this.

---

So where did the West Africans migrate from 3000 years ago? Didn't the bantu expansion start from West Africa or Cameroon to be precise?
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
Wally, the funny thing about this thread is that you started after lamenting too many OT threads.

This thread is both OT and not labeled OT.

I don't mind, but it might be worth remembering when chastising others for OT threads.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonis:

quote:

---

Lamin:
One might note too that the people who are now called West Africans have only been in the West Africa region for at most 3,000 years. There have been migrations Westward and Southward in relatively recent times. The recent so-called Bantu expansion from West-Central Africa to Southern Africa testifies to this.

---

So where did the West Africans migrate from 3000 years ago? Didn't the bantu expansion start from West Africa or Cameroon to be precise?

---

The Bantu expansion has nothing to do with West Africans above the Congo. Thw West Atlantic speakers and Mande for example originated in the Saharan highlands and were associated with the C-Group people.

Wm. Welmers (1971) has postulated an original homeland for the Niger-Congo Superset in the general vicinity of the Upper Nile. Ehret and Posnansky (1982) has suggested that the Mande diverged from the Kwa around 5000-4000 BC Dr. Welmers (1971) has hypothesized that around 3000 BC the Mande languages separated into Northern and Southeastern branches.


In the Sahelian zone there was a short wet phase during the Holocene (c. 7500-4400 BC), which led to the formation of large lakes and marshes in Mauritania, the Niger massifs and Chad. The Inland Niger Delta was unoccupied. In other parts of the Niger area the wet phase existed in the eight/seventh and fourth/third millennia BC (McIntosh & McIntosh 1986:417).

There were few habitable sites in West Africa during the Holocene wet phase. McIntosh and McIntosh (1986) have illustrated that the only human occupation of the Sahara during this period were the Saharan massifs along wadis. By the 8th millennium BC Saharan-Sudanese pottery was used in the Air (Roset 1983). Ceramics of this style have also been found at sites in the Hoggar (McIntosh & McIntosh 1983b:230). Dotted wavy-line pottery has also been discovered in the Libyan Sahara (Barich 1985).


The inhabitants of the Fezzan were roundhead blacks (Jelinek 1985:273).


The cultural characteristics of the Fezzanese were analogous to C-Group culture items and people of Nubia (Quellec 1985; Jelinek 1985). The C-Group people occupied the Sudan and Fezzan regions between 3700-1300 BC (Close 1988).

C-Group King



These early Paleo-Africans of Libya were called the Temehu by the Egyptians (Behrens 1984:30). Ethnically the Temehu had the same physical features of black African people (Quellec 1985; Jelinek 1985; Diop 1984:72).

Red-and-Black Pottery


These C-Group people used a common black-and-red ware. B.B. Lal (1963) of the Indian Expedition in the Campaign to Save the Monuments of Nubia proved that the Dravidian people probably originally lived in middle Africa before they settled South India.

The Proto-Mande speakers in the Saharan highlands were probably one of the numerous C-Group tribes settled in this area (1986b).

If we accept this hypothesis the C-Group people would represent a collection of ethnic groups that later became the Supersets we now find in the fragmentation belt, such as the Niger-Congo speakers Greenberg (1970) believes early domesticated ovicaprids. The origin of the Mande among the sedentary pastoral C-Group ethnic groups supports the linguistic data indicating an early Mande domestication of cattle.

In summary people presently living above Congo came from Nubia and the Fezzan.

.
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
What evidence do you have of this?
Depots, like El Mina, were leased
from the ruling African power.

Often enough it was rented simultaneously
to opposing European interests who then
had no choice but to fight each other for
actual possession and use as the African
power broker refused to designate either
claimant as the sole benefactor.

Do you know what happened between the time
a slaving vessel sought docking permission
and disembarked for American shores? Have
you any idea how long it took?

Stop making Africans appear to be hopeless
and hapless in the face of your white gods
from Europe who always have and always can
outwit outmaneouvre outthink and otherwise
outdo and always be more intelligent and
always have the upperhand over Africans who
must always be their inferior no matter what.

Stop this appeal to European superiority and
victim mentality and try to uncover accounts
of the slaving period in Africa not slanted
to white supremacists ideals.

There's no excuse for it. Slave trading was
big profitable business for both the Euro
buyers and the African sellers. The apologies
issued by two of the biggest African profit
reapers give lie to any assertion that Euros
overpowered them into supply slaves or that
lancados or other Afropeans numerically
dominated the African end of the trade.

Even a book as old as Basil Davidson's
Black Mother reveals the facts of the
African power brokers of the slave trade.

And what about enslaved Africans who made
it out of slavery only to repatriate and
then themselves procure slaves?

The African is not a passive object in
this matter. The African was an active
and key player.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:


This brings me to the question of the power relationships between European shipper and those who provided the captives. The relationship--like that between most African governments and the West today--was extremely unequal.

---

quote:

---

The vast majority of slaves taken out of Africa were sold by African rulers,
traders and a military aristocracy who all grew wealthy from the business.

. . . .

Tinubu square, commercial centre of today's
Lagos and home to Nigeria's Central Bank, is
named after a major nineteenth century slave
trader. Madam Tinubu was born in Egbaland and
rose from rags to riches by trading in slaves ,
salt and tobacco in Badagry. She later became
one of Nigeria's pioneering nationalists.


Africa's rulers, traders and military
aristocracy protected their interest in the
slave trade. They discouraged Europeans from
leaving the coastal areas to venture into the
interior of the continent. European trading
companies realised the benefit of dealing with
African suppliers and not unnecessarily
antagonising them. The companies could not have
mustered the resources it would have taken to
directly capture the tens of millions of people
shipped out of Africa. It was far more sensible
and safer to give Africans guns to fight the
many wars that yielded captives for the trade.
The slave trading network stretched deep into
the Africa's interior. Slave trading firms were
aware of their dependency on African suppliers.
The Royal African Company, for instance,
instructed its agents on the West coast "if any
differences happen, to endeavour an amicable
accommodation rather than use force." They
were "to endeavour to live in all friendship
with them" and "to hold frequent palavers with
the Kings and the Great Men of the Country, and
keep up a good correspondent with them,
ingratiating yourself by such prudent methods"
as may be deemed appropriate.

. . . .

When Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807
it not only had to contend with opposition from
white slavers but also from African rulers who
had become accustomed to wealth gained from
selling slaves or from taxes collected on slaves
passed through their domain. African slave-
trading classes were greatly distressed by the
news that legislators sitting in parliament in
London had decided to end their source of
livelihood.

. . . .

Reverend Samuel Johnson wrote of the subjugation
of neighbouring Yoruba kingdoms by Ibadan war-
chiefs in the 1850s: "Slave-raiding now became a
trade to many who would get rich speedily."

. . . .

The triangular slave trade was a major part in
the early stages of the emergence of the
international market. The role of slave-trading
African ruling classes in this market is not
radically different from the position of the
African elite in today's global economy. They
both traded the resources of their people for
their own gratification and prosperity. In the
process they helped to weaken their nations and
dim their prospects for economic and social
development.



From:
Tunde Obadina director of Africa Business Information Services
Slave trade: a root of contemporary African Crisis
http://www.afbis.com/analysis/slave.htm

---

quote:

---

What hurts me most is that some of your people have maliciously represented us in books that never die, alleging that we sell our wives and children for the sake of a few kegs of brandy. No. We are shamefully belied. Tell posterity that we have been abused. We do indeed sell to the white men a part of our prisoners and we have a right so to do. Are not all prisoners at the disposal of their captors? And are we to blame if we send delinquents to a far country? I have been told you do the same.

King of Dahomey to Governor Abson,
quoted in
A. Dalzel,
The History of Dahomey
London: 1793
p.219

Kwesi J. Anquandah
Castles and Forts of Ghana
p. 104

---

quote:

---

The important thing is that it is time African
scholars stop playing ostrich with the question
of our ancestral complicity and collaboration in
slave trade. . .


Amechi Okolo, Professor of Political
Science at Long Island University, New York, and
Nassau Community College, Garden City, New York

---

quote:

---

. . . what we Africans, as educators,
politicians, government policy-makers etc have
failed to do over these years, in particular
since independence. We do not discuss slavery.
We do not examine it, we do not educate
ourselves. A few of our writers such as Ama Ata
Aidoo and Sembene Ousmane have examined the
complicity of African slave-raiders and the
implications on family lives even at the peak of
the tragic trade. But the ignorance and denial
persist.


Folabo Ajayi

---

quote:

---

Africans unquestionably participated in the
Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade as procurers for the
European slave buyers. They saw the activity as
a commercial venture.



Oyekan OwomoyelaProfessor of English at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:
Stating the facts in no way entails some nebulous appeal to anybody's unfounded sense of "superiority". It is an historical fact that the bulk of the captives bound for the Atlantic were taken from way inland far from the West African coast. In fact, in some cases the captives changed hands a number of times before reaching the coast.

One arrived at the coast they were then leased over to agents on the the coast who then bartered them over to the shippers who then took them to their holding-dungeon baracoons.

If this kind of transaction was between equals as you suggest then how come there was no capital accumulation or wealth build-up on the West African coast for the 300 plus years that the Trade lasted?

If the full knowledge of the trade were known by those who provided the captives then they would have--assuming that they just as amoral as the Europeans--started doing the same thing that the Europeans were doing in the Americas: grow cotton, sugar cane, tobacco for export to the Americas and Europe. The truth is that Europe developed technologically as a result of the trade while Africa stagnated. It is this imbalance that made the colonisation of the whole of Africa by a few Europeans relatively easy.

Yet there were slave planations in Cape Verde, Sao Tome and possibly Angola but they were owned by Portugese and not West Africans.

---

quote:

---

Ottobah Cugoano, who was about 13 years old when he was kidnapped in 1770 in Ajumako in today's Ghana, had no doubt the shared responsibility of Africans for the horrid business. Referring to his own capture Cugoano wrote after he regained his freedom "I must own, to the shame of my own countrymen, that I was first kidnapped and betrayed by some of my own complexion, who were the first cause of my exile and slavery." But he added, "If there were no buyers there would be no sellers." By the same token, if there were no sellers there would be no buyers.

---

quote:

---

It was one thing for European nations to use military might to protect their coastal trading posts and subdue disgruntled local chiefs, it would have been an entirely different matter for them to penetrate the interior of the continent and fight the hundreds of wars that fed the slave trade.

Tunde Obadina

---

quote:

---

In 1471, the Portuguese arrived at the village then known as Edina (now called Elmina after the Portuguese De Costa de el Mina Ouro-‘the coast of Gold Mines’ – a phase which would also give rise to the moniker ‘Gold Coast’) and entered into trade with powerful chiefs whose name is recorded as Caramansa. Eleven years later, with written lease from Caramansa, the Portuguese built the castle of St George on the rock outcrop next to Elmina.

. . . .

It is also interesting to note that Portugal’s
tenure on the Gold Coast was in no respect
colonialism as we think of it today. The
Portuguese had no jurisdiction beyond their
fort, which were built with the permission of
the local chiefs on land that was formally
leased for the purpose. The Portuguese did make
a concerted effort to separate the Christianity,
but even this was restricted to the immediate
vicinity if the forts. They made no serious
attempt to venture inland, nor to capture the
Akan gold mines, but instead traded with the
local chiefs and merchant on an even footing.

However convenient it might be to see the trade
in slaves as an abomination introduced to Africa
by Europeans, there is no escaping the reality
that a slave trade was in existence from the
very earliest day of the trans- Sahara caravans,
when people captured in the sub- Sahelian region
were transported across the desert to be sold
its domestic bondage in North Africa and parts
of Europe. Nor can it be denied that a slave
class has formed a part of practically every
centralized Africa society on record, at least
until modern times. And while it is true that in
many past African societies slaves have had the
opportunity the climb the social ladder, it is
also true that in many such societies slaves
were treated as sub-human, and sacrificed to
mark special occasions or entreat deities.

None of which makes Africa in any way unusual,
since slavery in name or in kind has been a
feature of most ancient societies until this
century. It is merely worth nothing that the
slave trade out of the Gold Coast emerged in an
environment where not slavery but also trading
in slaves were established practices, just as is
should be note that the Europeans who conducted
this trade came from societies where it was
customary to hold public executions for crimes
as paltry as stock theft, and to burn alive
witches and other perceive heretics on a stake.
Viewed from the lofty moral height of the late
twentieth century, there is a certain
uncomfortable irony in the realization that the
earliest form of slave trade into by Europeans
on the Gold Coast involves not the export of
slave but their import, as captives brought
by Portuguese merchants from African sellers in
Benin were sold to African buyers in Elmina.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

quote:

---

What hurts me most is that some of your people have maliciously represented us in books that never die, alleging that we sell our wives and children for the sake of a few kegs of brandy. No. We are shamefully belied. Tell posterity that we have been abused. We do indeed sell to the white men a part of our prisoners and we have a right so to do. Are not all prisoners at the disposal of their captors? And are we to blame if we send delinquents to a far country? I have been told you do the same.

King of Dahomey to Governor Abson,
quoted in
A. Dalzel,
The History of Dahomey
London: 1793
p.219

Kwesi J. Anquandah
Castles and Forts of Ghana
p. 104

---

[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:
I just have no idea what those cowardly opportunistic refugee scholars are trying to say. No one is denying "complicity"; rather the question is "complicity under what conditions"? I said that the conditions were those of extreme inequality--in terms of knowledge and proactivity.

How can there be equal of players when one side always gained and the other always lost in this zero-sum exchange transaction.

Whatever individual kings or chiefs said is besides the point. What should be looked at is eyewitness accounts as documented by the slavers themselves or captives who escaped captivity to write about how they were acquired.

---

quote:

---

Kaba un Hru:
Those who go sold were nomadic Africans from the East, Central, South and North Africa. They were in the wrong places at the wrong time. It doesn't matter how long they had their village in a certain area, they were nomadic ..

...This form of slavery went on for 800 to 1100 years un-tested ... which means millions from the East were taken to the North-West and so forth ..

---

quote:

---

Once again, I believe most people who were captured and sold by Africans were nomads or people who wondered onto land that wasn't their's while trying to escape a different form of slavery. (I believe) that those sold to the Europeans were already enslaved or running from the Trans-Sahara Slave trade.

---

quote:

---

Yes East Africans were victims to Slavery as well (Over 28 million) ... It seems to me that your on this "I'm East African" trip ...

Now I will provide sources ... from what 'I BELIEVE' to be the case as I gave 'MY OPINION' on this subject! Being that I WASN'T THERE I will give my interpretation of what I think to be true.

lol

---

quote:

---

Slavery in the Arab World by Murray Gordon, 1987-
The General History of Africa: Studies and Documents 2, UNESCO,1979 - The African Slave Trade From the 15th to the 19th Century -
Basil Davidson's A History of East and Central Africa to the late 19th Century -

The Colonization of Africa by Alien Races, by Sir Harry Johnston -

These were all books that I have read which were suggested studies from John Henrik Clarke (not in person but in teachings) whom I was a student of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonis:
I won't buy that book because this topic doesn't really interest me, and also for the sole purpose of investigating your preposterous claim of imaginary lost people from all parts of africa other than west that got sold in the trans-atlantic trade.
The truth of the matter is (as you well know it) that the west african kingdoms sold their own people en masse for centuries to Europeans and whowever was interested, no need to excuse their actions by constructing theories of "lost nomads from south, east and north". You need to face the reality.

---

quote:

---

I for one don't believe and will never believe that African kings sold their daughters or sons or even relatives. African villages were families within themselves. Those who go sold were nomadic Africans from the East, Central, South and North Africa. They were in the wrong places at the wrong time. It doesn't matter how long they had their village in a certain area, they were nomadic .. just like Europeans are nomadic in America. They are just Nomads who just so happen to conquer to the Indian populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonis:
The majority of African-Americans ancestors were taken from the gold-coast, Benin, Ghana, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Togo, Nigeria etc. And some few from central-africa and Mozambique.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonis:
I thought it was common knowledge that the vast majority of african-americans and carribean ancestors and also afro-latinos were taken from the west-african region. Although some are from inner africa (like modern Congo and Angola) and few from south-east africa as Mozambique and Tanzania the majority would still be from West Africa.

Of course no one can for certain say the exact locations most were taken from since modern borders weren't outlined then, but these would roughly be the areas of concern.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonis:
He never said they were from the horn, he wanted to know if their is proof that majority came from west africa instead of other areas around africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonis:
@ Evergreen, i remember reading a report some thread at this forum that was based on African American genes, and it came to the conclusion that most AA lineage besides the Euro mixture came from west Africa. i'll try to find it, or you could post it if you know which study i'm talking about since i don't remember the name of the thread.

---

Evergreen Writes:

1) I do not beleive statistically significant samples have been taken of AA or in various unexplored (in a genetic sense) parts of Africa such as parts of Chad, Algeria, Libya, Niger and Western Sudan.

2) The phylogeny of the major y-chromosome E3a has not been fully resolved.

Until these issues are resolved we are 'guesstimating'.
 

---

Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
 
Anglo-Saxon and Latin cultures are at differnt parts of the 'humanity' spectrum regarding the integration of Africans into the social milieu.
Treatment was brutal on both sides and many Latin (spanish/portuguese) countries tended to integrate more while still holding on to old ideas of knowing one position in society.
Even Cuban and Dominican societies are at opposite ends of the spectrum regarding African culture today; Cubans celebrate it more while Dominicans deny it more! Nothing like the rhythes of Mongo Santamaria, Chano Pozo and others who sung in Yoruba language while the Dominican hated it when some of their own do it because it was too African! But again the Abacua (Yoruba speakers) was even more agressive when there were attempts to control them.
At one time, Argentina had one of higher slave populations but as usual they were sent to war to fight neighbouring countries, OR left for better communities. Brazil on the other hand, still has a strong African influence due to the influence of Xango, and the pantheon of Yoruba inspired spirituality with the Angolan capoeira background.

Slaves in Anglo-Saxon North America had an all or none asociation with the British and so from the beginning, they had no choice(s) despite a freedom for all stuff that was often spouted but it was not for blacks until the 1950's in USA!
I want to get away from the Latin group was better than the Anglo-Saxon group but there is good and bad on all sides!
 

---

Posted by vidadavida (Member # 12945) on :
 
Evergreen, if you were born in a hospital in America and you are an African American then they have your blood sample.
 

---

Posted by KaBa Un Hru (Member # 4547) on :
 
Its not that simple ...vidadavida

Once again, vidadavida ... I'm not trying to make an argument that African Americans come from East Africa least you get it wrong like I believe Yonis has gotten it. What my claim is, there is no way that you can take a few DNA samples and say,A-A's are strictly from West Africa when it has been proven on many instances that their are some who have connections to the East Coast of Africa. My argument is that you cannot take a few dna samples and make 17 to 28% of A-A's european.

The woman on the radio After taking dna samples proved this to be true. So then how did she get East African dna if their were no East Africans on the West Coast of Africa? We know that some humans forced into slavery were actually taken from East Africa because all records show this.

If your trying to say that I'm saying that African Americans came from Egypt, Somali, etc ... then you got me wrong. I haven't said anything like that ... I'm saying I believe that their were exodus from East Africa when Egypt was destroy, Ethiopia (now known as Sudan) and many other nations from European invasions that sent them migrating across all of Africa.

I'm curious, do you think that the ancient people of East Africa just sat there and were eradicated or do you believe they fled to safety?

basic understanding ...
 

---

Posted by KaBa Un Hru (Member # 4547) on :
 
I don't know why in the hell I'm on this subject again. I keep getting lured in on these subject knowing that I'm trying to stay out of them.

DNA samples is what you want ... I don't understand what good that would really do. If their were East African who evaded entrapments such as the Trans-Sahara slavery or even the mess that was imposed upon them from Arab invasion it is only logical that some East African cultures made it to West and Central Africa ... and were either merged into the basic population or have always had the same dna patterns as West Africans but are not know for having come from East Africa.

So really what can be proven from anything but that their were Africans taken from West, Central and East Africa. Its recorded historical and DNA has proven this to be so.

I'm done with this conversation ... I'm ready to learn more about Egypt.
 

---

Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
 
The difference in opinions here lies essentially between those who view history as a process and those who view history as a collection of non-related events. (The events person would declare that The USA became independent from the British on July 4, 1776... )

Here's an example of the process by which African-Americans have ancestry in the ancient Nile valley (and is thus not an OT thread); and using the example of a single African ethnic group - the Wolof

Wolof ancestral roots

quote:

---

The Wolof are a very dark-skinned black people, whom Murdoch (1959) includes in the group of Senegambians. At present, the Wolof are mainly found in the coastal part of Senegal, although they originally extended farther north into Mauritania. Practically no data are available on the origin of the Wolof. According to (Wolof) tradition, their ancestors migrated from the Sahara Desert into the region north of Senegal (Fouta Toro), but around A.D. 1000 they were forced to move further south, pressed by the Berbers from the north and by the Peul from the east (Sonko-Godwin 1985).

---

quote:

---

"According to the late Cheikh Anta Diop, the great Senegalese historian and anthropologist, the main groups of people in Senegambia have their origins in Ancient Egypt. To support his theory, Diop draws on a number of disciplines from archaeology to linguistics, and a variety of sources from African oral traditions to the writings of Greeks and Arabs."

Insight Guides: The Gambia and Senegal, 1996 APA Publications (HK) Ltd, Houghton Mifflin Company

---

quote:

---

The African Wolofs were brought to the North American colonies as enslaved people between 1670 and 1700. Working principally as house slaves, they may have been the first Africans whose cultural elements and language were assimilated into the developing culture of America. Additionally, a large number of Wolof words took root in American English because Wolof people were frequently used as interpreters by European slavers along the coast of West Africa in the early years of the slave trade. These African interpreters used Wolof names for African foodstuffs fed to enslaved Africans on the middle passage, such as yams and bananas--words that then became parts of Standard English in North America.

---

quote:

---

prime examples from Mande and Wolof cultural groups for the use of similar words are o ke, "that's it" or "all right," in Mande language, and waw kay, which means "all correct," in Wolof culture. The use of the expression "O.K." is first recorded in the speech of black Americans around 1776, but it was probably used much earlier in the 1700s.

---

quote:

---

Another Wolof word popular in present-day American English is "dig," as in "dig this man." This word stems from the Wolof word dega, meaning either "look here" or to "understand," often used to mark the beginning of a sentence. In the English spoken by African Americans in the 1960s, "dig" means " to understand something." An example in Wolof is dega nga olof, "Do you understand Wolof?"

---

quote:

---

"Honkie," a term popular during the 1960s, was first used by blacks to describe those white men who drove into African-American communities and honked automobile horns for their black dates. But, it also is related to the word hong in Wolof, which means red or pink, and white people are described in most African languages as "Red." The word sambo, considered an abusive term by African Americans, is respectful in Wolof and a common family name throughout West Africa.

---

quote:

---

Several Wolof words were popularized during the jazz era. For example, "jive" in Ebonics (Black English) means "misleading talk," which is code language originating from the Wolof word jey. The American words hep, hip, and hippie translate roughly into "to be aware or alive to what is going on," or an awareness especially to drugs. In Wolof, the verb "hipi" means "to open one's eyes." The American slang cat means a person, as in hep-cat or cool cat, and is similar to the Wolof kai used as a suffix following the verb. The Wolof lexicon jamboree is now a standard part of American language. Originally, a jamboree was a noisy slave celebration. A "jam session" during the days of plantation slavery meant a time when enslaved musicians and their friends assembled for dance and entertainment. We still use the term today. The origin most likely is the Wolof word for slave, jaam.

---

quote:

---

The verb "sock" in the sense of "to strike" or "sock it to me, Baby" is found in Wolof and has a similar sound and meaning in Wolof for the expression "to beat with a pestle." The word "bug," as in "jitterbug" or "Bugs Bunny," denotes an enthusiastic person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
The difference in opinions here lies essentially between those who view history as a process and those who view history as a collection of non-related events. (The events person would declare that The USA became independent from the British on July 4, 1776... )

Here's an example of the process by which African-Americans have ancestry in the ancient Nile valley (and is thus not an OT thread); and using the example of a single African ethnic group - the Wolof

Wolof ancestral roots

quote:

---

The Wolof are a very dark-skinned black people, whom Murdoch (1959) includes in the group of Senegambians. At present, the Wolof are mainly found in the coastal part of Senegal, although they originally extended farther north into Mauritania. Practically no data are available on the origin of the Wolof. According to (Wolof) tradition, their ancestors migrated from the Sahara Desert into the region north of Senegal (Fouta Toro), but around A.D. 1000 they were forced to move further south, pressed by the Berbers from the north and by the Peul from the east (Sonko-Godwin 1985).

---

quote:

---

"According to the late Cheikh Anta Diop, the great Senegalese historian and anthropologist, the main groups of people in Senegambia have their origins in Ancient Egypt. To support his theory, Diop draws on a number of disciplines from archaeology to linguistics, and a variety of sources from African oral traditions to the writings of Greeks and Arabs."

Insight Guides: The Gambia and Senegal, 1996 APA Publications (HK) Ltd, Houghton Mifflin Company

---

Wolof in America; its impact on the American language

quote:

---

The African Wolofs were brought to the North American colonies as enslaved people between 1670 and 1700. Working principally as house slaves, they may have been the first Africans whose cultural elements and language were assimilated into the developing culture of America. Additionally, a large number of Wolof words took root in American English because Wolof people were frequently used as interpreters by European slavers along the coast of West Africa in the early years of the slave trade. These African interpreters used Wolof names for African foodstuffs fed to enslaved Africans on the middle passage, such as yams and bananas--words that then became parts of Standard English in North America.

---

> O.K.

quote:

---

prime examples from Mande and Wolof cultural groups for the use of similar words are o ke, "that's it" or "all right," in Mande language, and waw kay, which means "all correct," in Wolof culture. The use of the expression "O.K." is first recorded in the speech of black Americans around 1776, but it was probably used much earlier in the 1700s.

---

> "dig"

quote:

---

Another Wolof word popular in present-day American English is "dig," as in "dig this man." This word stems from the Wolof word dega, meaning either "look here" or to "understand," often used to mark the beginning of a sentence. In the English spoken by African Americans in the 1960s, "dig" means " to understand something." An example in Wolof is dega nga olof, "Do you understand Wolof?"

---

> "honkie" (red)

quote:

---

"Honkie," a term popular during the 1960s, was first used by blacks to describe those white men who drove into African-American communities and honked automobile horns for their black dates. But, it also is related to the word hong in Wolof, which means red or pink, and white people are described in most African languages as "Red." The word sambo, considered an abusive term by African Americans, is respectful in Wolof and a common family name throughout West Africa.

---

> From the jazz era

quote:

---

Several Wolof words were popularized during the jazz era. For example, "jive" in Ebonics (Black English) means "misleading talk," which is code language originating from the Wolof word jey. The American words hep, hip, and hippie translate roughly into "to be aware or alive to what is going on," or an awareness especially to drugs. In Wolof, the verb "hipi" means "to open one's eyes." The American slang cat means a person, as in hep-cat or cool cat, and is similar to the Wolof kai used as a suffix following the verb. The Wolof lexicon jamboree is now a standard part of American language. Originally, a jamboree was a noisy slave celebration. A "jam session" during the days of plantation slavery meant a time when enslaved musicians and their friends assembled for dance and entertainment. We still use the term today. The origin most likely is the Wolof word for slave, jaam.

---

> ...and so on...

quote:

---

The verb "sock" in the sense of "to strike" or "sock it to me, Baby" is found in Wolof and has a similar sound and meaning in Wolof for the expression "to beat with a pestle." The word "bug," as in "jitterbug" or "Bugs Bunny," denotes an enthusiastic person.

---

ref: http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_es_languages.htm

This same process of comparison can be applied to any of the other African ethnic groups as well; which came to form the African-American people...

---

quote:

---

KaBa Un Hru:
So then how did she get East African dna if their were no East Africans on the West Coast of Africa?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonis:

quote:

---

KaBa Un Hru:
So then how did she get East African dna if their were no East Africans on the West Coast of Africa?

---

I don't think there is any such thing as East African DNA (south east africans are quite genetically different from north east africans) so you might want to try again.

---

lol^

quote:

---

And also i listened to the link you provided which i found Henry Gates Jr explicitly lecturing the woman that only Two percent of the new world Africans came from Mozambique (east africa) and since the Portuguese opérated in that area even less ended up in America.

---

quote:

---

I still don't see how this supports your theory of only none west-african nomads getting shipped to the new world (who got lost from East, South and North Africa)before west africans supposedly sold them to Europeans.

---

Actually, I've heard of such a theory, though it's disputed. I want to hear more about this - theor, in-depth too.

I have a feeling it was a diffusionist theory meant to attribute 3 of West africa's largest empires to "nomadic - invadors from the North" who ofcourse proceed to start their civilization.

Don't knnow why, though... Wasn't hot enough for them where ever the hell they left from I guess...

quote:

---

Maybe it's hightime for you to see things as they really are instead of constructing redicoulas theories.[..]

---

... or perhaps just be willing to learn about how things really are, and NOT just stubbornly "see" (really believe \ wish-for ).


 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
As usual, someone brings up a contemporary African American topic into this board and when mixed and when mixed with the subject of this board-- ancient Egypt, it blows up into something else.
 

---

Posted by Willing Thinker {What Box} (Member # 10819) on :
 
lol, looks

like someone has ^Hamton's syndrome .
 

---

Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
 
I did not realize this but in my country, there is a historical record, where, when the Spaniards were defeated and the island of Trinidad was taken over by the British, the British also was fighting in the colonies of USA.
They enlisted the aid of Muslims from Sierra Leone who fought on the British side against the 'Americans'. After the British were kicked out, they took these Muslims to Trinidad and here they lived in the countryside (now a overgrown swamp today)!

Here is a link:

http://www.guardian.co.tt/features1.html
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Willing Thinker {What Box}:
lol, looks

like someone has ^Hamton's syndrome .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:


Stop making Africans appear to be hopeless
and hapless in the face of your white gods
from Europe who always have and always can
outwit outmaneouvre outthink and otherwise
outdo and always be more intelligent and
always have the upperhand over Africans who
must always be their inferior no matter what.

Stop this appeal to European superiority and
victim mentality and try to uncover accounts
of the slaving period in Africa not slanted
to white supremacists ideals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Yes, sigh, all throughout history the African has
been nothing more than the pitiable servant or the
unwitting lackey of the great white gods from europe,
nevermind the fact that they generally traded away
people for immaterial and consumable commodities
(as Obadina brought out) being the reason "there was
no capital accumulation or wealth build-up on the
West African coast for the 300 plus years that
the Trade lasted".

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

While Europe invested profits from the trade in laying the foundation of a powerful economic empire, African kings and traders were content with wearing used caps and admiring themselves in worthless mirrors while swigging adulterated brandy bought with the freedom of their kinsmen. Virtually all the items imported during the nefarious business were for consumption or weapons for waging wars. A slave ship's manifest published in 1665 listed items carried for sale to Africans as old hats, caps, salt, swords, knives, axe-heads, hammers, belts, sheepskin gloves, bracelets, iron jugs and even "cats to catch their mice." One African trader calling himself Grandy King George was quite specific in his demand. He wrote to a slave captain: "send me one lucking-glass, six foot long by six foot wide." He also asked for an armchair, a gold mounted cane and a stool." The more common imports were alcohol, guns and gunpowder , salt and textiles. The quality of the items shipped to Africa was inferior - the spirits were adulterated and the guns designed for the African market.

Africa's contemporary history may have been different had its rulers and traders demanded capital goods for use in building the economy rather than trinkets and booze. As it was, the slave trade arrested economic development in Africa. The loss in human resources had dire consequences for labour dependent agricultural economies. Any possibility that the internal dynamics of African society could have led to the development of capitalism and industrialisation was blocked by the slave trade. The few existing manufacturing activities were either destroyed or denied conditions for growth. Cheap European textiles, for instance, undermined local cloth production. Samuel Johnson wrote in the late nineteenth century about Yorubaland: "Before the period of intercourse with Europeans, all articles made of iron and steel, from weapons of war to pins and needles, were of home manufacture; but the cheaper and more finished articles of European make, especially cutlery, though less durable are fast displacing home-made wares." The predominance of the slave trade prevented the emergence of business classes that could have spearheaded the internal exploitation of the resources of their societies. The slave trade drew African societies into the international economy but as fodder for western economic development.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:
I've always wondered how useful any DNA test would be in a lot of cases. I remember watching a documentary called "African American Lives" on PBS where they tested a whole bunch of celebrities (Oprah, Whoopi Goldberg, Bishop T.D. Jakes, etc.) and the host of the show took the test, but both his paternal and maternal ancestry lead him back to Europe! All that time and he thought that he was black (at least in majority), now that's heart breaking. I'm quite sure my father's line is protected, but my mother's line is pretty obscure and beyond my great grandmother it's most likely Native American, Blackfoot/Cherokee.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sista:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:
I've always wondered how useful any DNA test would be in a lot of cases. I remember watching a documentary called "African American Lives" on PBS where they tested a whole bunch of celebrities (Oprah, Whoopi Goldberg, Bishop T.D. Jakes, etc.) and the host of the show took the test, but both his paternal and maternal ancestry lead him back to Europe! All that time and he thought that he was black (at least in majority), now that's heart breaking. I'm quite sure my father's line is protected, but my mother's line is pretty obscure and beyond my great grandmother it's most likely Native American, Blackfoot/Cherokee.

---

I remember that show and I am not sure if he specifically took the European DNA or what. From my knowledge of DNA testing, if one is looking for his or hers African ancestry one would have to take a specific test to get that information. For instance, if it is European decent you are looking for, that test would be separate from the test for African decent. From my understanding, one would have to take four separate test to find the ancestry of let's say Native American, European, African or Asian. If one is looking to locate European ancestry, that is the test that one would take and if he or she decides to find African ancestry, he or she would test again fro African ancestry which would be a totally different comparison of genes/DNA

---

I believe they used profiles/samples from through out the globe for comparative analysis. In that case I'm not sure that it was restricted in this way, but Africanancestry.com seems to be devoted primarily if not solely to the African side of things.
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
It's barely a month since we went over this and already
it's forgotten (or was never understood to begin with).

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004922#000018

We've all explained here numerous times over the
past couple of years that DNA tests work best for
populations not individuals.

Whether NRY mtDNA based, the only thing a test
does is show one forebear among possibly dozens.



To say someone of an inner African phenotype is
white because 1 or 2 out of 64 progenitors were
European while the remaining 62 were, say, all
Africans is ludicrous.
 

---

Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
 
^All of that is apparent, though in the particular case which is referenced (the guy on the TV show) the individual (Henry Louis Gates, Jr) was actually shown to have had only 50% "sub-Saharan" Ancestry, maybe I should of mentioned that, it was him personally who complained about "not being black" in his own words (He was just wise-cracking, but literally this is the case since he's mulatto). Literally out of 100 of his ancestors (on either side), 50 of them were European. They had to do some new/different kind of test (as oppose to Y Chromosome or MtDNA) where they sampled his African side and compared it with various ethnic groups and it showed that he clustered along side the Mende people.
 

---

Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
It's barely a month since we went over this and already
it's forgotten (or was never understood to begin with).

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004922#000018

We've all explained here numerous times over the
past couple of years that DNA tests work best for
populations not individuals.

Whether NRY mtDNA based, the only thing a test
does is show one forebear among possibly dozens.



To say someone of an inner African phenotype is
white because 1 or 2 out of 64 progenitors were
European while the remaining 62 were, say, all
Africans is ludicrous.

---

Nothing else could be any clearer as this post is on the topic!
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
Again, without knowing all of Skippy's progenitors
it's impossible to state he has "only 50% 'sub-saharan'
ancestry."

"Literally out of 100 of his ancestors (on either side),
50 of them were European." No, no, no and again, no!

Whatever HGs or HTs where used in the test, you must
understand something basic. I hope Rasol will come
along and give his breakdown once again but in the
meantime:


Let's take a 54 year old subject today and go back
five generations to that persons great-great-great-
grandparents of 200 years ago in the days of slavery.

The O represents the subject.

The M is the woman five generations ago whose
mtDNA showed up on the test. Let's say she was
Cherokee.

The F is the ancestral man as explained above
except the genetic tests were done on the Y
chromosome. Let's say he was Scotch Irish.

The mtDNA and Y chromosome tests only show the
matrilineal ancestry through the Cherokee woman's m 's and the
patrilineal ancestry through the Scotch Irishman's f 's.

Five generations ago in 1800, unless there was incest,
or cousin matings, the subject has 32 ancestors. Let's
say 30 of them were all Fons from Dahomey (modern Benin).

They're all those X 's and Y 's the DNA tests miss!

They contribute 93.75% to the ancestral make up
of the subject. Literally, they make him (or her)
what he (or she) is.

The 1 out of 32 Cherokee ancestress and the 1 out
of 32 Scotch Irish ancestor do not make the subject
50% Indian and 50% European. Together they only
come to 6.25%. All those Dahomey Fons make the
subject African.

Why wouldn't a responsible tester or company tell their client
about this kind of test limitation? Why don't these docudrama
writers on the cable tv narrate the truth about what these
tests really tell?

code:

---

 
YEAR GENERATION

1950 Ego/Ega                                     O
                                                 | 
1920 1                       m                   =                   f
                             |                                       |  
1890 2              m        =          Y                  X         =         f
                    |                   |                  |                   |  
1860 3         m    =    Y         X    =    Y         X   =     Y         X   =     f 
               |         |         |         |         |         |         |         | 
1830 4      m  = Y    X  = Y    X  = Y    X  = Y    X  = Y    X  = Y    X  = Y    X  = f 
            |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    | 
1800 5     M=Y  X=Y  X=Y  X=Y  X=Y  X=Y  X=Y  X=Y  X=Y  X=Y  X=Y  X=Y  X=Y  X=Y  X=Y  X=F

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:
^All of that is apparent, though in the particular case which is referenced (the guy on the TV show) the individual (Henry Louis Gates, Jr) was actually shown to have had only 50% "sub-Saharan" Ancestry, maybe I should of mentioned that, it was him personally who complained about "not being black" in his own words (He was just wise-cracking, but literally this is the case since he's mulatto). Literally out of 100 of his ancestors (on either side), 50 of them were European. They had to do some new/different kind of test (as oppose to Y Chromosome or MtDNA) where they sampled his African side and compared it with various ethnic groups and it showed that he clustered along side the Mende people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:
^I see exactly what you're saying, but first, this is the episode that I saw, not sure if they break down the results on the site, but...
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/aalives/

^That's his picture on the front btw..

Basically he kept asking them how was this possible, they told him that most likely both of his parents were Mulatto. Indeed, they showed a picture of his father and he was very light skinned and wavy haired like most half-breeds I know personally. Basically, Henry's father's father was European, but his grandfather's (on his father's side of course) wife was black. Henry's mother's mother was white, but his grandmother's husband was black (his grandfather on his mother's side).. There's four possible ways to go, it just so happens that we can only trace two through the Y Chromosome and MtDNA, these tests obscure the fact that he's of African descent but a test that they did to indicate approximate admixture found that he had 50% sub-Saharan ancestry, just how it found that Chris Tucker had 83%, and Oprah had 88%, and Dr. Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot had 67%.. It wasn't complicated, through out the program they showed step by step the ancestry of these people, I guess you'd have to see it to know what I'm talking about. You can search and download the entire program on mvgroup.org if you ever feel like checking it out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:
^^What are you getting at here? Are you suggesting that the DNA tests performed on these people for this specific program was a fraud and/or mis-leading? If so, how?

What does that have to do with this particular case and how does this information tell us that Henry Louis Gates Jr. is not Mulatto? Especially given the fact that a lot (certainly not the majority) of African Americans are. No sarcasm involved but is it truly "impossible" or far fetched to believe that an African America can indeed be a Mulatto?

---

...sigh...
alTakruri has already explained this, and more than once; if you haven't gotten it by now, oh well...
 

---

Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
 
^^What are you talking about? Indeed, you just don't seem to be following what I said from my personal experience of watching the film, the condescending cordiality is unwarranted and there's no need to save face by alluding to what someone else said.


"Harvard professor Henry Louis "Skip" Gates Jr. concluded from tests that he's 50% white."
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/genetics/2006-02-01-dna-african-americans_x.htm

"Q: Can you talk about the DNA analysis you did?

A: We gave each participant a variety of tests: a Y-chromosome test (except for the women, who don't have a Y chromosome), a mitochondrial DNA test and an "admixture" test. The admixture is the percentage of one's DNA that comes from four genetic populations -- Asian, Native American, Sub-Saharan African and European. And those results were fascinating. The average African American, for example, is 20 percent European and five percent Native American. One of our participants is 16 percent Asian, and had no idea! It's just fascinating." http://www.pbs.org/wnet/aalives/

^They gave him an Autosomal DNA test in addition to the MtDNA and Y Chromosome to indicate Biogeographical ancestry and admixture. The admixture results showed him to be 50/50, period. It was displayed and shown with a graph, the European and African percentages were equal and visually displayed in the graphs. In all fairness you're not helping at all, your input isn't necessary unless in fact you know what I'm talking about and have seen the actual film yourself. Again, download and search for the documentary on mvgroup.org, these are not my conclusions at all. I appreciate both of you guy's efforts but I haven't been told anything new and maybe you should have data on the case referenced first before you undermine my inference of the info.. In other words, watch the documentary please before you comment on the results of it.
 

---

Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
 
The face saving, seeming arrogance, and lack of attention to details and the relevant info on here is somewhat appalling. Obviously alTakruri simply didn't follow what I said and/or didn't watch the program, which is why he focused on explaining something to me that I already know about, paternal and maternal ancestry, that was so completely irrelevant to the results of the tests.

It's insulting when people simply brush you off because they think that they understand something that you don't, when in fact it's the other way around and they're just lost on what I'm trying to explain. It's almost amazing that you (Wally) couldn't get out of what I was saying that the people on the documentary took more than just Y Chromosome and MtDNA tests, which is beyond the scope of what is unnecessarily being explained to me. Wally, either you skimmed through and did not read what I wrote because for some reason you feel as if you're too high and mighty to do so, or logically it just did not compute in your head that what alTakruri is explaining has nothing to do with the results. I assume that you're a lot smarter than that so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you simply brushed me off with out reading what I wrote and lost patience maybe because that's how you are or you're used to dealing with simple minded people. But please do not treat me in that manner, I am not simple minded in any way and all I ask for is common courtesy/decency, at least enough to where if you respond to me you'll address everything that I said and not just skip over it and ramble on about some irrelevant 9th grade biology information that some one else provided, then brush me off. I put up with that enough among cocky Caucasians, I don't need it on an Egypt forum..
 

---

Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
 
Sundiata...Sundiata
You got to lighten up man!

This is a forum where IDEAS are being debated, and except for the occasional fools who drift in here, none of the debates about ideas are personal. I have had very lively and very heated debates (from which I have learned much) with some of the people here whom I have the greatest respect for. None of us have taken any of these debates as personal attacks; it's the nature of debating!
Fools, we don't tolerate. You are not a fool...

What I am particularly debating you about is your constant harping on a William Gates program wherein this bourgeois idiot claims that he is 50% white! (Also you repeat the derogatory usage of the word "mulatto"; bi-racial would be a slight improvement; multi-racial would be closer to reality...)

a) Halle Berry, Alicia Keyes, Lisa Bonet, are all 50% white due to their parentage; they all have Black fathers and White mothers. Once you go beyond their immediate heritage of mother and father, it becomes problematical as to what is their ancestral heritage, as alTakruri has demonstrated.

b) If "uncle" Gates is 50% White then one of his parents has to be White! Even this is not an absolute figure either as the White parent's ancestry must consist of 100% European (White) ancestry (unlikely) and the Black parent's ancestry must consist of 100% African (Black) ancestry (extremely unlikely).
Do you begin to see how ridiculous all of this nonsense is?

These charlatans are simply using celebrities to sell what amounts to little more than Snake oil...
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
I had no interest in watching the show when it
came and have none in watching it now either.

Why?

Precisely because its geared to wow the uninitiated.

Docudramas rarely if ever accurately inform about
their topic. They just entertain their viewers and
breed the type of foregoing correspondance where
actual knowledge of population vs personal genetics
(no matter how often or clearly presented) is doubted
in favor of the tv shows misrepresentative narration.

Due to the owner shutting off the search function
I cannot locate a previous thread precisely relating
to these tests that purport to tell one what ancestral
percentages they are of
* White (a color)
* Black (a color)
* Native American (a vast super-ethny)
* Asian (continental origin)
*


It's a rip off plain and simple. And if Skippy spent
half a day studying valid population genetics he
and those other celebs would all know they bought
snake oil.

Considering DNA tests for yourself? The company you
chose is important because of the methods they use and
the genome base they check against. Here are links to
http://www.kerchner.com/dnaprintlog2003.htm
http://www.kerchner.com/mtdnalog2003.htm
where clients discuss their results, notice in particular the
comments of those expecting SA (sub-Saharan African)
matches

Avoid a company making extravagant claims about what
they can do, or that doesn't come up front about the limitations
of their tests, or who have a small comparative resource base,
or has a high percentage of "2nd tests" due to "failures," or etc.
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
The above cited html links are now buried within
this pdf http://www.kerchner.com/mtdnalog2003.htm
which is easily searchable for the keyword 'african'

P.S. Here are examples where maternal male and paternal female
ancestors of generation 2 and beyond are known by traditional
genealogy methods but missed by DNA tests. Before laying her
money down Marla should've asked and been told the tests she
chose can't show paternal female ancestry.


NOTE:
IE = IndoEuropean (a language family)
EA = East Asian (a region of a continent)
NA = Native American (a transcontinental super-ethny)
SA = Sub-Saharan African (an imprecise continental divide)

quote:

---

Guest: Ana
Guest's Website: http://www.geocites.com/casadecoqui/
Date-Time: Friday, July 25, 2003 at 01:36:02 (CDT)
My Expected Results for IE,EA,NA,SA Population Groups: 60, 0, 25, 15
My Actual DNAPrint Results for IE,EA,NA,SA Population Groups: 76, 24, 0, 0
Date DNAPrint Test Was Ordered: 12 May 2003
Comments: We are island born Puerto Ricans and so are all of our direct ancestors for the last 250 years. About that time, the first documented Spaniards appear in our tree. In other words nothing but creole or native Puerto Ricans for generations. Puerto Ricans as an ethnicity are comprised of three main groups, the Spanish colonial, the Taíno Indian and the African. Since my brother and I have over 23 years of personal documented genealogy and history of European, African, and probable Taíno (Native) heritage, the results are absolutely not as expected and seem implausible. In other words, something does not compute here. Since I just received the results today, we are still digesting it all.
Email address: bueli@...

Guest: Marla Jones
Date-Time: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 at 08:38:04 (CDT)
My Expected Results for IE,EA,NA,SA Population Groups: 6,0,8,86
My Actual DNAPrint Results for IE,EA,NA,SA Population Groups: 20,0,0,80
Comments: I was really surprised at the Indo-European and at the 0% NA my paternal ggrandmother and gggrandmother were of NA ancestry I have their pictures also.
Email address: mailto:Reborn2h2o@...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

It's barely a month since we went over this and already
it's forgotten (or was never understood to begin with).

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004922#000018

We've all explained here numerous times over the
past couple of years that DNA tests work best for
populations not individuals.

Whether NRY mtDNA based, the only thing a test
does is show one forebear among possibly dozens.



To say someone of an inner African phenotype is
white because 1 or 2 out of 64 progenitors were
European while the remaining 62 were, say, all
Africans is ludicrous.

---