...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
Are Mestizos Jealousy of Afro-American History
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Akachi: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by KING: [qb] People THINK What do Native Americans Called African AMericans look like??? What do Native Americans called Afro Brazilians look like??? What do Native Americans called Haitians look like??? All three Groups look African. They don't look Asian Black, They look African Black. Clyde is right and yall keep trying to claim the mongoloids as the only Native Americans, when African americans are Black Native Americans. Stop trying to win debates, and actually LISTEN to each other.. Good Job Clyde [/qb][/QUOTE]You are right. I am thinking the DNA of these folks would be the same if what you are saying is true. "Pure" indigenous Native Americans will have the same DNA as Africans in America. But they don't. Your argument is based purely on conjecture not hard facts. Curly hair is not unique to Africa. Millions of black folks in the Pacific have curly hair and are not Africans. And these same people are right next to other populations of black folks in the Pacific with straight hair. Both are equally native, indigenous and aboriginal. Hair is subject to random mutation and genetic drift as much as any other trait of the human body. [/qb][/QUOTE]Why Ignore that those Pacific Islanders are all variations of Africoid people who simply migrated and settled in those parts of the World thousands of years ago? Those melaninated [URL=https://youtu.be/MT3WdW79qvA?t=358]Africoid[/URL] Southern-Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders actually say that they migrated [URL=https://youtu.be/MT3WdW79qvA?t=765]from Africa[/URL]. The fact that not only are those Asians phenotypically identical to Africans, but they also carry African blood types as indicated by the spread of maria - maria resistance (sickle cell, G6PD etc). This can only be passed down from common ancestry not "adaption". The map below CLEARLY shows that this phenomena is an African one by the distribution. First the distribution of the U.S. matches the distribution of the black population concentrated in the [URL=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/New_2000_black_percent.gif]low land south[/URL]. The situation in Europe is also telling because it is in the areas where we know was very recently (500 years ago) [URL=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_svnsF5OLbI]dominated[/URL] by African Muslims (Moors). Once again we see Africoid haplotypes for sickle cell distributed from Africa all the way into southeast Asia. This fact should lay to rest any attempts to say that we are not closely related to the melaninated peoples of Asia. They literally share our unique blood line. [/qb][/QUOTE]Sickle cell is not DNA. Surely you aren't claiming that the DNA of people in New Guinea is the same as the DNA of people in Africa. These people are descendants of the first people to leave Africa 60,000 years ago. So how are they still African? And which of these people claim they "recently" came from Africa? The problem you have is that the environment determines phenotype. And Africa itself is not the basis of "blackness", but tropical environments are. Anywhere there are tropical environments you will find people who are tropically adapted. And mosquitos are not unique to Africa either. You also find large numbers of mosquitos anywhere that is hot and moist, ie. a tropical environment. Therefore, you are making a false equivalency. Having sickle cell traits does not equate to recent African ancestry. Because it could simply be an adaptation to local environmental conditions as opposed to some 'recent' migrations from Africa. Note that all these populations inhabit the same latitude as central Africa around the equator, which is the primary location of tropical environments on the planet. Therefore, it is an environment issue, not Africa that is causing the similarities in phenotype and blood type. It has been shown numerous times that the DNA of Pacific Islanders, Andaman Islanders, Australian Aborigines and Papua New Guineans is far from Africans, even though they look similar by phenotype..... [/qb][/QUOTE]This is false. you have failed to read the literature. you need to do your own research. [IMG]http://olmec98.net/mela1.jpg[/IMG] . The research shows Blacks in Africa and the Pacific share DNA. . [/qb][/QUOTE]Come on Clyde, these people are not recent migrants from Afrca...... [QUOTE] The population history of Aboriginal Australians remains largely uncharacterized. Here we generate high-coverage genomes for 83 Aboriginal Australians (speakers of Pama–Nyungan languages) and 25 Papuans from the New Guinea Highlands. We find that Papuan and Aboriginal Australian ancestors diversified 25–40 thousand years ago (kya), suggesting pre-Holocene population structure in the ancient continent of Sahul (Australia, New Guinea and Tasmania). However, all of the studied Aboriginal Australians descend from a single founding population that differentiated ~10–32 kya. We infer a population expansion in northeast Australia during the Holocene epoch (past 10,000 years) associated with limited gene flow from this region to the rest of Australia, consistent with the spread of the Pama–Nyungan languages. We estimate that Aboriginal Australians and Papuans diverged from Eurasians 51–72 kya, following a single out-of-Africa dispersal, and subsequently admixed with archaic populations. Finally, we report evidence of selection in Aboriginal Australians potentially associated with living in the desert[/QUOTE] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308391208_A_genomic_history_of_Aboriginal_Australia [/qb][/QUOTE]You keep talking about the Australians, I am talking about the Melanesians. These are two different populations. It is the Melanesian who came recently into the Pacific . Stop talking about things you have no knowledge of. Its alright to have an opinion--but at least do some background reading before you accept Eurocentric research as the final statement about the relationship between Black people. You just don't get it. For the past 200 years researchers admitted that the Africans, Dravidians, Melanesians, and Australians were all negroes. Now the genetics research shows that the haplogroups of Eurasia are founded on haplogroup L3(M.N), that had to have originated and expanded across Africa, before the Australian exit from Africa into Asia 60kya. This is why the Australians took L3(M,N) to Asia, after it originated in Africa. [b]Many researchers fail to recognize that there is a craniometric difference between Australoids /Australians representatives of the OOA population, Mongoloids and Melanoids; craniometric differences that indicate two migrations of the Black Variety into the Pacific and East Asia.[/b] . [IMG]http://olmec98.net/Ausfiji.png[/IMG] . Tsuenehiko Hanihare discussed the phenotypic variations between these populations(1). Tsuenehiko classified these people into three major populations Southeast Asian Mongoloids (Polynesians), the Australians or Austroloid type and the Nicobar and Andaman (Melanoid) samples which he found lie between the predominately Southeast Asian and Australoid/Australian type (1). [b]The Australian aborigines and Melanesians show cranonical variates and represent two distinct Black populations(2).[/] The Australoids or Australians live mainly in Australia and the highland regions of Oceania, the Melanoid people on the otherhand live in the coastal regions of Near Oceania and Fiji. D.J de Laubenfels discussed the variety of Blacks found in Asia.[b] Laubenfiels explained that Negroids/Melanoids such as the Tasmanians are characterized by wooly black hair and sparse body hair (2). Australoids or Australians on the otherhand have curly, wavy or straight hair and abundant body hair. Other differences between these Black populations include Negroid / Melanoid brows being vertical and without eyebrow ridges, whereas Australoid brows are sloping and with prominent ridges (2). [/b] . . This led M. Pietrusewky to recognize two separate colonizations of the Pacific by morphologically distinct populations one Polynesian and the other Melanesian (3). Pietrusewky’s research indicates a clear separation between the Australian-Melanesian crania and the Polynesian crania (3). The findings indicate an origin for the Polynesians in Southeast Asia (3-5), and an early Australo-Melanesian presence in East Asia as discussed in the earlier comment. [b]Laubenfels argues that the Australians are remnants of the original African migration to the region 60kya (2). This view is supported by David Bulbeck who found that the Australian craniometrics are different from the Mongoloid (Polynesian), and Melanoid crania metrics (4). This research indicates that whereas Australian aborigine crania agree with the archaic population of Asia and first group of Africans to exit Africa, they fail to correspond to the Sahulland crania which are distinctly of Southwest Pacific or Melanoid affinity (2,4). [/b]This suggests that by the rise of Sahulland there were two distinct Black populations in Asia one Austroloid and the other Melanoid (4). The Melanesian type does not appear in East Asia (Siberia) until after 5000 BC. This is thousands of years after Luizia and Eva Neharon had existed in Brazil and Mexico respectively. By the Neolithic the Melanoids or Papuans are associated with millet cultivation at Yangshao and Lougshan according to Pietrusewky’s work (5). Tsang argues that the probable homeland of the Austronesian speakers was the Pearl River delta, here the Melanoid people cultivated millet (6). Sagart believes that there is a Proto-Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian family of languages based on the millet culture the Melanoids introduced to China (7). [b] The craniometrics make it clear the Australians are not related to the Melanesians. Stop spreading lies about Melanesians and Africans not being related[/b] Reference: 1. Tsunehiko Hanihare, Interpretation of craniofacial variations and diversification of East and Southeast Asia. In Bioarchaeology of Southeast Asia. (Eds.) Marc Oxenhan and Nancy Tayles (pp.91-111). Cambridge, 2005. 2. D.J. Laubenfels, Australoids, Negroids and Negroes: A suggested explanation for their distinct distributions. Annals Association of Am. Geographers, 58(1), 1968: 42-50. 3. Michael Pietrusewky, A multivariate craniometric study of the prehistoric and modern inhabitants of Southeast Asia, East Asia and surrounding regions:A human kaleidoscope. Cambridge Studies in Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology, No. 43, 2006: 59-90. 4. David Bulbeck, Australian Aboriginal craniometrics as construed through FORDISC, 2005. Retrieved: 4/2/2008: http://arts.anu.edu.au/bullda/oz_craniometrics.html 5. M. Pietrusewsky, The Physical anthropology of the Pacific, East Asia: A multivariate craniometric analysis. . In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology,Linguistics and Genetics (pp.201-229). RutledgeCurzon, 2005. 6. Tsang Cheng-Hwa, Recent discoveries at Tapenkeng culture sites in Taiwan;Implications for the problem of Austronesian origins. In The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics ,(Eds) L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (pp.63-74). RutledgeCurzon, 2005. 7. L. Sagart, Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian an Updated and improved argument. In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics (pp.161-176). RutledgeCurzon, 2005. [/qb][/QUOTE]Clyde you haven't shown that Melanesians are recent African migrants. Verbal legends are not the same as actual DNA. Melanesian DNA is not closely related to Africans. The Main DNA haplogroups of the Pacific are M and N lineages along with some Q lineages, plus some B lineages. M haplogroups in Melanesia: Again, your claims should be backed up by evidence across the board. I have no doubt that there have been more recent migrations to parts of South Asia after the original OOA migrations, but those migrations were tiny and did not change the overwhelming majority of the populations already in place from the original OOA event. And those populations are black and have similar features to Africans because they live in tropical environments similar to most black Africans, who are also tropically adapted. You are basically arguing that somehow tropical adaptation is something unique to Africa when it is not. It is an environmental adaptation and not an "African" adaptation. And on the point of Aboriginal migrations to the Americas from Asia, there are many scholars who are beginning to acknowledge this. [QUOTE] A stunning discovery by US and Brazilian geneticists has provided definitive evidence for a controversial theory that the Siberian ancestors of modern Native Americans were not the first people to colonise the Americas. A team of US and Brazilian geneticists, led by Dr David Reich, of Harvard Medical School’s Department of Genetics, has shown that members of the Surui, Karitiana and Xavante peoples of Brazil’s Amazonia region, carry distinctive DNA sequences that identify them as the descendants of an earlier wave of colonists known as the Australoids. These people, said to have left Africa 50,000 years ago, are related to Australia’s Aborigines, the Onge people of India’s Andaman Islands, and Papua New Guineans. Dr Reich and his colleagues have also identified Australoid genetic motifs in the indigenous Mixe people of the eastern Highlands of Mexico’s Oaxaca state.[/QUOTE] http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2015/07/22/discovery-change-view-human-history/ [/qb][/QUOTE]The Mixe are also related to Africans. Haplogroup A found among Mixe and Mixtecs .The Mande speakers carry mtDNA haplogroup A, and is also a substratum language of Mixe. You can't read. I never said the Australian Aborigines, the Onge people of India’s Andaman Islands, and upland Papua New Guineans were recent migrants from Africa. The recent migrants to the Pacific are the Melanesians and coastal Papua New Guineans. The Melanesians spread ffrom Southeast Asia and East Asia during the Lapita period. That is why the language they speak is related to African languages just like the placenames. You said I have not presented any evidence of the African origin of the Melanesians--but I have. Here is the evidence. [b]First, the Fijians claim they came from Africa. We know a megalithic culture expanded from Africa into the Indian/Pacific Ocean areas after 2000 BC. This is why we find pyramids in Melanesia, but not Australia.[/b] [IMG]http://i49.tinypic.com/xn4vip.jpg[/IMG] [b] Tonga step pyramid [/b] [IMG]http://i48.tinypic.com/w059ol.jpg[/IMG] [b] Pyramid of Mauritius [/b] Secondly, African place names are found in the Pacific and correspondences between lexical items. [list] [*]Common Terms: English Manding Melanesian Polynesian arrow bye,bya fana,pane fana,pana Father baba babi papa Man tye ta taga-ta head ku tequ-qa tuku-noa pot daga taga taga vase bara pora,bora bora-bora fish yege ige, ika ika ox, cattle konga,gunga kede kuda [/list] The ancient Austronesians cultivated rice, millet, yams and sugarcane. (Bellwood 1990, p.92) It would appear that the Polynesians learned agriculture from the Manding as illustrated below: [list] [*]Polynesian English Manding *talun fallow, land daa *tanem to plant, sow daa *suluq torch, jet of flame suu *kuDen cooking pot,bowl ku [/list] This evidence provides linguistic and anthropological support for the Fiji tradition. It is wrong that you guys deny a people history just because your European masters to do not present evidence in support of a native tradition. If you keep waiting for Europeans to verify our history you will have a long wait. Recently Williams John Page (1988) discussed the Lakato Hypothesis. The Lakato Hypothesis stated simply implies that the Melanesian people of Fiji were carried to the Pacific Islands by Indonesian maritime merchants after they had colonized parts of East and central Africa. In these Indonesian centers, Page (1988) believes that the Africans "gravitated into the Indonesian inspired trade". Page (1988) wrote that :[CODE]"It is further suggested that the Lakato colonies in Africa were the principal contributors to the earliest settlements of Malagasy and responsible for the traces of Indonesian influence in Africa which have endured into modern times, as identified by previous investigators".[/CODE]To support this hypothesis Page (1988) presents place names that are made up of African ethnic names (AEN) as roots for Fijian placenames. These toponyms include a multitude of hills, streams and villages composed of a simple AEN root plus a Fijian placenames e.g.,koro, wai-ni-, vatu and na-. Page (1988, p.34) found 270 AEN's forming part of Fijian place names (FPN). The interesting fact about the AEN and FPN cognates is that they are found in West Africa and not East Africa. (Page 1988, p.47) This fact negates Page's (1988) hypothesis because there are no rivers in Africa that link East Africa and West Africa. This suggest that Africans who later settled West Africa must have been in the Pacific long before the Austronesians arrived on Madagascar. This view is supported by the fact that the classical mongoloid people did not arrive in the Pacific area until after 500 B.C. Page (1988,p.66) believes that the AEN-FPN cognates are the result of the establishment of Indonesian colonies first along the Zambia river and from there into Central and Western Africa between the fourth and eleventh centuries A.D. During this period Bantu speakers are believed to have been incorporated into the Indonesian Lakota culture and between the eleventh to sixteenth A.D. settled in Melanesia by Lakota fleets. (Page 1988, p.66) Although Page's (1988,p.67) theory is interesting the fact that the AENs that are FPN's are prefixed to a multitude of hills, streams and villages" indicate that these place names are very old because the names for hills and streams are rarely changed. Page (1988, p.67) noted four common prefixes used in the FPN's: Koro 'village,hill', wai-ni- 'water of'; vatu- 'stone'; and na- 'the'. These terms are closely related to Manding terms as illustrated below: [CODE]FPN English Manding koro hill kuru koro village so-koro wai-ni water of ba-ni 'course of water' vatu stone bete na the ni[/CODE]As illustrated above the AENs and Manding terms are analogous for 'hill', 'the' and 'of'. It would appear that the FPN /w/ corresponds to Manding /b/. Due to the thousands of miles separating the Manding and AENs, this cognate can be explained as loan words. Given the full agreement of these terms suggest a genetic relationship between AENs and Manding and descent from Paleo-African. In addition to AENs serving as FPNs we find many toponyms in Oceania that corresponds to West African place names. Below we see 36 place names from Oceania and WestAfrica that share full correspondence. Manding ,Polynesian and Melanesian share many terms for kinship, dwellings, topographical features, dwellings and utensils. [list] [*]WEST AFRICA OCEANIA Alamand Alamanda Alika Alika Alika Arika Babonga Babonga Bagola Bagola Batori Batori Bakaka Bakaka Bambula Bambula Buduri Buduri Burbura Burbura Gambia Gambia Kalobi Kalobi Kalonda Kalonda Kalonga Kalonga Kamalo Kamalo Kambia Kambia Kamori Kamori Kantara Kantara Karako Karako Kayata Kayata Kukula Kukula Magari Magari Magura Maguri Makara Makara Marosi Maros Oronga Oronga Palanka Palanka Parapara Parapara Sio Sio Sumbura Sumbura Tamana Tamana Taraba Taraba Taramal Taramal Teleki Teleki Totoki Totoki Varong Varong [/list] See full article: http://olmec98.net/pac1.htm In fact, they also share common placenames. Shared place names in Melanesia suggest that the Melanesians recently came to the Pacific from Africa, as claimed by the Fijians. [IMG]http://olmec98.net/mela2.jpg[/IMG] The Melanesians probably belonged to the Niger-Congo and Dravidian speaking communities that formerly lived in the Sahara-Sahel region until 5-6kya. The Melanesians formerly lived in Africa and/or South China/Southeast Asia before they sailed to the Pacific Islans, probably as part of the Lapita migrations. In figure 3 we see cognate Mande and Melanesian terms for vase, pot, arrow, cattle/ox, and fish. They also shared agricultural terms as well [list] [*]Polynesian English Manding *talun fallow, land daa *tanem to plant daa *suluq torch, flame suu *kuDen cooking pot,bowl ku [/list] [IMG]http://olmec98.net/mela3.jpg[/IMG] [b]As you can see the Melanesians and Africans are not only negroid they also share genes, placenames and culture terms. You can not dispute the fact that Melanesians carry African genes as I posted originally, in addition to the genes you posted. You have not provided any evidence disputing any of this evidence.[/b] [IMG]http://olmec98.net/Ausfiji2.png[/IMG] If the Melanesians did not come from Africa why do they share the same haplogroups, placenames and key terms with Africans and look like Africans instead of Australians ? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3