Quote from the video: "Many of the pre classic Mexicans were blacks, not native Americans".
These boneheads are simply ridiculous. The first Native Americans WERE BLACKS.
The point you guys keep missing is this:
1. The first people of the Americas were blacks descended from the aboriginals of Asia. (White Asians were not the majority population at that time).
2. Later migrations of lighter skinned Asians came into the Americas and mixed with the aboriginal populations.
3. It is also possible that lighter skin also developed among the aboriginals in America as well.
4. Direct travel to the Americas by Africans is quite possible, but that is not the origin of black skin among the natives.
5. The populations of the Americas prior to European arrival had a very diverse set of features similar to those found all over Asia, including Aboriginal Australian type features, North Asian type features, Pacific Island type features and South Asian type features (India).
6. The arrival of Europeans destroyed much of this diversity.
Therefore, trying to claim that any blacks in the Americas were not "native Americans" is stupid. They were native Americans. And the worship of gods with black skin is ancient all over the planet and goes back to the fact that such gods originated with the first populations of these areas who were black. Of course, all these populations ultimately originated in Africa, but all blacks are not recent migrants from Africa.
And calling Marc Washington a scholar who has done extensive research is purely a joke.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Native Americans came much later, probably after 4kya. They replaced many of the native American Black populations.
During the expansion of the Native Americans many Africans continued to come to the Americas this is why we see the rise of Pre-Classic Mexican culture whoes iconography represents Africans--not native American.
There is a Mande substratum in the Mayan and Aztec language. This subtratum language makes it clear that the Blacks who influenced the Maya and Aztecs were recent Africans--not ancient Blacks--since the ancient Black Native Americas would not have spoken a Mande language.
The Mande influence over the Mexicans is also supported by the genetic evidence linking the Mexicans and Mande people. Check out this video:
posted
Total ignorance. There is no such thing as a "White Asian." This is something the idiot Afronut had to concoct in order to rationalize his "Black Asian" nonsensical claim.
You people are a fringe and will ALWAYS remain a fringe.
-------------------- Will destroy all Black Lies Posts: 2025 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes sir, neither "white" Europeans exist, them a "pink yellow", but them call themselves "white"...
There is no humanity white, like water colour!
Them so-called "whites" dem a pink-yellows.. Me call em "Pinkoids" not caucasoids... Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
The Native Americans came much later, probably after 4kya. They replaced many of the native American Black populations.
During the expansion of the Native Americans many Africans continued to come to the Americas this is why we see the rise of Pre-Classic Mexican culture whoes iconography represents Africans--not native American.
There is a Mande substratum in the Mayan and Aztec language. This subtratum language makes it clear that the Blacks who influenced the Maya and Aztecs were recent Africans--not ancient Blacks--since the ancient Black Native Americas would not have spoken a Mande language.
The Mande influence over the Mexicans is also supported by the genetic evidence linking the Mexicans and Mande people. Check out this video:
The first people of the Americas were black aboriginal populations Asia like those in South Asia and the Pacific. While Africans may have also directly sailed to the Americas, the primary populations derived from Aboriginal blacks. And the Americas were not isolated from the rest of the world, they were traveling to and from Asia, Africa and elsewhere long before European arrival. So the populations there were somewhat diverse by the time Europeans arrived.
Simply saying that any blacks outside of Africa is again retarded and the idea that there were no black native americans before Africans arrived as slaves or without migrations direct from Africa is equally stupid.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Native Americans came much later, probably after 4kya. They replaced many of the native American Black populations.
During the expansion of the Native Americans many Africans continued to come to the Americas this is why we see the rise of Pre-Classic Mexican culture whoes iconography represents Africans--not native American.
There is a Mande substratum in the Mayan and Aztec language. This subtratum language makes it clear that the Blacks who influenced the Maya and Aztecs were recent Africans--not ancient Blacks--since the ancient Black Native Americas would not have spoken a Mande language.
The Mande influence over the Mexicans is also supported by the genetic evidence linking the Mexicans and Mande people. Check out this video:
The first people of the Americas were black aboriginal populations Asia like those in South Asia and the Pacific. While Africans may have also directly sailed to the Americas, the primary populations derived from Aboriginal blacks. And the Americas were not isolated from the rest of the world, they were traveling to and from Asia, Africa and elsewhere long before European arrival. So the populations there were somewhat diverse by the time Europeans arrived.
Simply saying that any blacks outside of Africa is again retarded and the idea that there were no black native americans before Africans arrived as slaves or without migrations direct from Africa is equally stupid.
Your behavior is stupid. If mongoloid Native Americans share haplogroups, cultural elements, religious terms and lexical items generally of African groups not related to the OOA event, they are not the original Black settlers of the Americas. This supports the conclusion that many Black Native Americans are of recent African origin.
quote:Originally posted by Recovering Afro-holic: Total ignorance. There is no such thing as a "White Asian." This is something the idiot Afronut had to concoct in order to rationalize his "Black Asian" nonsensical claim.
You people are a fringe and will ALWAYS remain a fringe.
.
Afro-drunk - The world and the past, are much more complicated than you know. Be restrained with your pronouncements.
.
Mummies Prove It: Once, China Was Inhabited by White People - These people also knew marijuana
By Stefan Anitei, Science Editor
28th of December 2006, 11:30 GMT
Chinese people are maybe the symbol for the Mongoloid race. The first question that emerges in our mind when we see an Asian face is: are you Chinese?
Even if many are Japanese, Korean, Thai, Vietnamese and so on.
But what people do not know is that during the Antiquity, while Egyptians were building their impressive pyramids and Greeks were fighting for Troy, Western China was in fact inhabited by blond-haired blue-eyed white people.
Now, a group of Chinese archaeologists is attempting to identify a 2,800-year-old mummy of an Caucasian man found in an ancient tomb from Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (Northwest China), another from a long series.
The well-preserved mummy is likely the one of a shaman and has been under examination since it has been found in 2003.
The scientists were puzzled by the presence of a sack of marijuana leaves that archaeologists found buried with the leather-coat bound mummy.
"From his outfit and the marijuana leaves, which have been confirmed by international specialists to be ingredients for narcotic, we assume the man had been a shaman and had been between 40 and 50 years old when he died," noted historian Li Xiao explained.
The 2003 exploration on the area brought to light 600 mummies from 2,000 area tombs.
These mummies of the white people that once inhabited Western China were not embalmed, like the Egyptian ones, but they were unwittingly preserved from decay by local climate: extreme summer heat and aridity, bitter winter cold, and salty soil.
When researchers first discovered the mummies, they were astonished by their certain European appearance, with blond or red hair, prominent noses, mustaches and beards, tartan-weave garments, and jaunty feathered caps.
The mummy people, called the Tocharians, left even a written language that is clearly Indo-European.
Also, in old Chinese chronicles, contacts with red-haired people from the west are depicted.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Recovering Afro-holic: In your stupidity and attempts to deny the Afrocentric position. You have sought to deny the proven and obvious.
Whites originally CAME from Asia idiot!!
If your simple mind can provide an alternate place for their homeland, then please post it, I could use a good laugh.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Native Americans came much later, probably after 4kya. They replaced many of the native American Black populations.
During the expansion of the Native Americans many Africans continued to come to the Americas this is why we see the rise of Pre-Classic Mexican culture whoes iconography represents Africans--not native American.
There is a Mande substratum in the Mayan and Aztec language. This subtratum language makes it clear that the Blacks who influenced the Maya and Aztecs were recent Africans--not ancient Blacks--since the ancient Black Native Americas would not have spoken a Mande language.
The Mande influence over the Mexicans is also supported by the genetic evidence linking the Mexicans and Mande people. Check out this video:
The first people of the Americas were black aboriginal populations Asia like those in South Asia and the Pacific. While Africans may have also directly sailed to the Americas, the primary populations derived from Aboriginal blacks. And the Americas were not isolated from the rest of the world, they were traveling to and from Asia, Africa and elsewhere long before European arrival. So the populations there were somewhat diverse by the time Europeans arrived.
Simply saying that any blacks outside of Africa is again retarded and the idea that there were no black native americans before Africans arrived as slaves or without migrations direct from Africa is equally stupid.
Your behavior is stupid. If mongoloid Native Americans share haplogroups, cultural elements, religious terms and lexical items generally of African groups not related to the OOA event, they are not the original Black settlers of the Americas. This supports the conclusion that many Black Native Americans are of recent African origin.
.
The point is that there were thousands of black Native Americans in the Americans upon the arrival of White Europeans. They shared the exact same customs, languages and traditions as any other "type" of native American. Your statement is simply baseless and based on a need to see any and all blacks world wide as RECENT migrants from Africa. You and Marc constantly try to portray any population of blacks outside of Africa as recent African migrants. In those cases where it is obvious that these people have been in place for thousands of years, you create all sorts of phony logic in order to twist the meaning of African to apply to all blacks. In other cases, you create phony distinctions between native populations and Africans in order to reinforce a fake dichotomy between native and blacks. The first natives world wide were all blacks, but they were not all recent migrants from Africa. Yes, later migrations of lighter skinned Asians did arrive in the Americas, but that does not mean that all the aboriginal black populations already there simply dissappeared. That is the part that is stupid. The later arrivals simply became part of the diversity found on the continent at the time of European contact.
The fact is that you nor Marc know much about the true history of humanity which begins in Africa. Because if you did you would realize that all aboriginal populations worldwide were blacks and that therefore finding blacks outside of Africa does not imply recent African migration.
Time and time again it has been shown on this forum that the earliest remains in the America were more like Aboriginal Australians and Africans. This does not mean that Africans migrated directly to the Americas in large numbers in ancient times. It is more likely that it means that most humans migrating from Asia in ancient times retained the African features of their ancestors. And to this day there are still groups of acknowledged abroginal native americans across the Americas who are black and share the exact same linguistic and cultural features as other natives.
But as usual you guys over simplify everything in order to cling to fake ideas about blackness equating with Africanness.
The point being that native Americans came in a range of features reflecting the population history of the continent, which starts with aboriginal blacks and includes more recent migrations from Asia and then followed by the arrival of Europeans and African slaves.
posted
A good example of a native population with little to no recent African genes but a diverse set of features, including very dark almost African looking features: the Tarahumara in Mexico. And you will find aboriginal type native populations like this all over America.
posted
Nice pictures Doug M, And you are quite correct, regardless of how depicted by the White media (Spanish and Anglo) the Americas are, and have been for a very long time, a melting pot.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
These are Mestizos. 93% of Mexicans are Mestizos. Mestizos have European, African and Native American ancestry. They are not representative of the original native American population nor the original Black Native Americans. You live in a world of fantasy. Instead of posting picture spam you should study a people's history first. If you would have done this you would not be publishing spam.
.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: A good example of a native population with little to no recent African genes but a diverse set of features, including very dark almost African looking features: the Tarahumara in Mexico. And you will find aboriginal type native populations like this all over America.
posted
These are Mestizos. 93% of Mexicans are Mestizos. Mestizos have European, African and Native American ancestry. They are not representative of the original native American population nor the original Black Native Americans. You live in a world of fantasy. Instead of posting picture spam you should study a people's history first. If you would have done this you would not be publishing spam.
.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Yes the first Americans were Black. They also came from Africa 30kya. See:
The Native Americans came much later, probably after 4kya. They replaced many of the native American Black populations.
During the expansion of the Native Americans many Africans continued to come to the Americas this is why we see the rise of Pre-Classic Mexican culture whoes iconography represents Africans--not native American.
There is a Mande substratum in the Mayan and Aztec language. This subtratum language makes it clear that the Blacks who influenced the Maya and Aztecs were recent Africans--not ancient Blacks--since the ancient Black Native Americas would not have spoken a Mande language.
The Mande influence over the Mexicans is also supported by the genetic evidence linking the Mexicans and Mande people. Check out this video:
The first people of the Americas were black aboriginal populations Asia like those in South Asia and the Pacific. While Africans may have also directly sailed to the Americas, the primary populations derived from Aboriginal blacks. And the Americas were not isolated from the rest of the world, they were traveling to and from Asia, Africa and elsewhere long before European arrival. So the populations there were somewhat diverse by the time Europeans arrived.
Simply saying that any blacks outside of Africa is again retarded and the idea that there were no black native americans before Africans arrived as slaves or without migrations direct from Africa is equally stupid.
Your behavior is stupid. If mongoloid Native Americans share haplogroups, cultural elements, religious terms and lexical items generally of African groups not related to the OOA event, they are not the original Black settlers of the Americas. This supports the conclusion that many Black Native Americans are of recent African origin.
.
The point is that there were thousands of black Native Americans in the Americans upon the arrival of White Europeans. They shared the exact same customs, languages and traditions as any other "type" of native American. Your statement is simply baseless and based on a need to see any and all blacks world wide as RECENT migrants from Africa. You and Marc constantly try to portray any population of blacks outside of Africa as recent African migrants. In those cases where it is obvious that these people have been in place for thousands of years, you create all sorts of phony logic in order to twist the meaning of African to apply to all blacks. In other cases, you create phony distinctions between native populations and Africans in order to reinforce a fake dichotomy between native and blacks. The first natives world wide were all blacks, but they were not all recent migrants from Africa. Yes, later migrations of lighter skinned Asians did arrive in the Americas, but that does not mean that all the aboriginal black populations already there simply dissappeared. That is the part that is stupid. The later arrivals simply became part of the diversity found on the continent at the time of European contact.
The fact is that you nor Marc know much about the true history of humanity which begins in Africa. Because if you did you would realize that all aboriginal populations worldwide were blacks and that therefore finding blacks outside of Africa does not imply recent African migration.
Time and time again it has been shown on this forum that the earliest remains in the America were more like Aboriginal Australians and Africans. This does not mean that Africans migrated directly to the Americas in large numbers in ancient times. It is more likely that it means that most humans migrating from Asia in ancient times retained the African features of their ancestors. And to this day there are still groups of acknowledged abroginal native americans across the Americas who are black and share the exact same linguistic and cultural features as other natives.
But as usual you guys over simplify everything in order to cling to fake ideas about blackness equating with Africanness.
The point being that native Americans came in a range of features reflecting the population history of the continent, which starts with aboriginal blacks and includes more recent migrations from Asia and then followed by the arrival of Europeans and African slaves.
quote: Mitochondrial DNA polymorphisms in the Amerindian: Tarahumara, Huichol, and Purépecha, and in one Mestizo Mexican population # Lucila Sandoval-Ramirez, IMSS, Mexico # Dr Maria Magana-Torres, IMSS, Mexico # Dr Marisela Casas-Castaneda, IMSS, Mexico # Dr Gerardo Vaca, IMSS, Mexico # Dr Fernando Rivas, IMSS, Mexico # Dr Jose Cantu, IMSS, Mexico
Objective: To describe and compare mtDNA haplotypes among Mexican populations: Mestizo of the West, Tarahumara, Huichol and Purépecha. Methods: mtDNA of 200 unrelated individuals was analyzed; 50 Mestizos from Western Mexico and 150 native of the three American ethnic groups: 50 Southeastern of Chihuahua Tarahumaras, 50 North of Jalisco and East of Nayarit Huicholes and 50 of the lake region of the Michoacan State Purépechas. Twenty-one polymorphic sites were analyzed using the PCR-RFLP technique. First, the haplogroups A, B, C, D and M were identified. The samples of the origin of their mitocondrial haplotype could not be identified, and 12 additional polymorphic sites and the sequenciation of the mtDNA hypervariable region I (HVI) were analyzed with the purpose to assign them to some of the following haplogroups: X (European-American); H, I, J, K and U (European), L (African) and F (Asian). Results: In 200 samples, 15 different haplotypes were identified by the analysis of nine ethnic-specific polymorphic sites. This allowed the assignation of the Amerindian haplogroups (A, B, C and D) in 188 samples. The distribution in the mestizo population was: A(34%),B(24%),C(10%),D(10%)and A/B (4%),in Tarahumara: A(12%),B(30%),C(54%) and D(2%),in Huichol: A(46%),B(26%),C(26%)and D(0%)and in Purépecha: A(44%),B(24%),C(18%),D(0%),A/D(6%)and C/D(6%). Twelve samples did not pertain to the haplogroups A,B,C and D (nine Mestizos, one Tarahumara, one Huichol and one Purépecha). Eight Mestizos (8/12) were assigned to European haplogroups H (5/12), K (1/12) and U (2/12), and the mitochondrial haplotype of one Mestizo, one Tarahumara, one Huichol and one Purépecha could not be identified. Haplogroup X (fifth American founder haplogroup) was not observed among these four populations, and a high number of compound haplotypes (12%) was present in the Purépecha population. Conclusions: mtDNA was of Amerindian origin in its majority (82% Mestizos and 98% Tarahumaras, Huicholes and Purépechas). The genes flow of European origin (Caucasian) that conform the cluster of Mexican pool genes came through males. There was no evidence of maternal African components in this population sample.
As usual, you are simply trying to deny the fact that blacks are the oldest type of population on every part of the planet. Claiming these are Mestizos and only the result of recent African admixture is another example of your desperate attempts to tie all black features to recent migrations from Africa, which is retarded. Being that blacks are the aboriginal type of ALL humanity, it is impossible to even say that with a straight face. But by now it is obvious that you are stuck on trying to maintain the strict racial typologies created by whites in order to inject fake notions of what constitutes an African into the discussion of ancient peoples world wide. In this view everybody black around the world is simply a recent migrant from Africa, which in reality is a contradiction of your supposed aim of black uplift.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: These are Mestizos. 93% of Mexicans are Mestizos. Mestizos have European, African and Native American ancestry. They are not representative of the original native American population nor the original Black Native Americans. You live in a world of fantasy. Instead of posting picture spam you should study a people's history first. If you would have done this you would not be publishing spam.
.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Yes the first Americans were Black. They also came from Africa 30kya. See:
The Native Americans came much later, probably after 4kya. They replaced many of the native American Black populations.
During the expansion of the Native Americans many Africans continued to come to the Americas this is why we see the rise of Pre-Classic Mexican culture whoes iconography represents Africans--not native American.
There is a Mande substratum in the Mayan and Aztec language. This subtratum language makes it clear that the Blacks who influenced the Maya and Aztecs were recent Africans--not ancient Blacks--since the ancient Black Native Americas would not have spoken a Mande language.
The Mande influence over the Mexicans is also supported by the genetic evidence linking the Mexicans and Mande people. Check out this video:
The first people of the Americas were black aboriginal populations Asia like those in South Asia and the Pacific. While Africans may have also directly sailed to the Americas, the primary populations derived from Aboriginal blacks. And the Americas were not isolated from the rest of the world, they were traveling to and from Asia, Africa and elsewhere long before European arrival. So the populations there were somewhat diverse by the time Europeans arrived.
Simply saying that any blacks outside of Africa is again retarded and the idea that there were no black native americans before Africans arrived as slaves or without migrations direct from Africa is equally stupid.
Your behavior is stupid. If mongoloid Native Americans share haplogroups, cultural elements, religious terms and lexical items generally of African groups not related to the OOA event, they are not the original Black settlers of the Americas. This supports the conclusion that many Black Native Americans are of recent African origin.
.
The point is that there were thousands of black Native Americans in the Americans upon the arrival of White Europeans. They shared the exact same customs, languages and traditions as any other "type" of native American. Your statement is simply baseless and based on a need to see any and all blacks world wide as RECENT migrants from Africa. You and Marc constantly try to portray any population of blacks outside of Africa as recent African migrants. In those cases where it is obvious that these people have been in place for thousands of years, you create all sorts of phony logic in order to twist the meaning of African to apply to all blacks. In other cases, you create phony distinctions between native populations and Africans in order to reinforce a fake dichotomy between native and blacks. The first natives world wide were all blacks, but they were not all recent migrants from Africa. Yes, later migrations of lighter skinned Asians did arrive in the Americas, but that does not mean that all the aboriginal black populations already there simply dissappeared. That is the part that is stupid. The later arrivals simply became part of the diversity found on the continent at the time of European contact.
The fact is that you nor Marc know much about the true history of humanity which begins in Africa. Because if you did you would realize that all aboriginal populations worldwide were blacks and that therefore finding blacks outside of Africa does not imply recent African migration.
Time and time again it has been shown on this forum that the earliest remains in the America were more like Aboriginal Australians and Africans. This does not mean that Africans migrated directly to the Americas in large numbers in ancient times. It is more likely that it means that most humans migrating from Asia in ancient times retained the African features of their ancestors. And to this day there are still groups of acknowledged abroginal native americans across the Americas who are black and share the exact same linguistic and cultural features as other natives.
But as usual you guys over simplify everything in order to cling to fake ideas about blackness equating with Africanness.
The point being that native Americans came in a range of features reflecting the population history of the continent, which starts with aboriginal blacks and includes more recent migrations from Asia and then followed by the arrival of Europeans and African slaves.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: These are Mestizos. 93% of Mexicans are Mestizos.
Clyde some of the things you say is absolute repetition of colonial thinking. You consider yourself against colonial thinking but you embrace it more than most people
The Anglos are worse than the Spanish and Portuguese were and the scheme to destroy dark skinned people is still in full motion. You claim the indigenous population was destroyed generations ago (or just heavily mixed) when you should be concerned about future generations.
quote:DOES THE FOLLOWING SOUNDS FAMILIAR? 90-95 % OF THE INDIAN POPULATION OF MEXICO PERISH? THERE ARE NO MORE MEXICAN INDIGENOUS PEOPLES BUT JUST MESTIZOS?
"The Mestizo Concept: A Product of European Imperialism"
quote:Note: the professor errs when he writes the "ten percent of the Mexican people who are regarded as indio" . . . this is not accurate. The CIA gives Mexican Indigenous population a 30% who are said to be of PURE BLOOD. But this too is not accurate if we take the concept of a Mestizo as follows:
(4) "As a cultural concept, referring to a mixture of customs, ways of behaving, and so on."...
....Now, is this mestization of the Mexican-Chicano people a concrete social reality or is it primarily the Europeans’ imposition of alien descriptive categories upon the Mexican-Chicano masses? Let us look at the situation of Spain and Mexico with this question in mind. Spain is, clearly, far more of a mestizo nation (if that term is ever properly to be used) than is Mexico.
(1) The Spanish people speak a totally borrowed language, a dialect or branch of Italo-Latin mixed with many thousands of Arabic words. Very few words of the indigenous Hispano-Iberic language remain in use.
(2) The culture of Spain is a complex mixture of Latin-Italic, North African, Middle Eastern, Greek, Gitano (Gypsy), and other characteristics, with very few indigenous (pre-Roman) traits remaining, except among the Basques and Gallegos.
(3) Racially, the modern Spaniard probably carries relatively few indigenous genes, the latter having been greatly overwhelmed by Carthaginian, Celtic, Latin-Roman, Germanic, Arab, Moorish, Berber, Jewish, black African, and Gitano intermixture.
In both a racial and culture sense, then, the Spaniard is profoundly a mestizo. In fact, it is safe to say that (except among the Basques) the Spanish culture of modern times is almost wholly non-Spanish in origin (in terms, at least, of specific traits) and is thoroughly mixed. Surprisingly, however, one never finds Anglo-Saxon social scientists categorizing the Spaniards as a mestizo. One never finds scholars describing a Spanish subgroup as part Gitano or as a North African physical type. One never finds social scientists attempting to dissect the Spanish people and then to tell them who they are! ......
...The colonial policies of Spain, Britain, and the United States have invented the concept of mestizo and given reality to the concept through racist, caste-oriented policies that favor white persons over nonwhites while distinguishing grades of people within the nonwhite world. Isn’t time that this grading system is halted forever? The Plan to Liquidate the Anishinabe Peoples
In Mexico an indio who puts on shoes, learns Spanish, and moves to a larger city becomes a non-Indian (he becomes mestizo or a Mexicano).
In Peru an Anishinabe woman who sets up a small shop becomes a chola. She is no longer an india.
In Guatemala a Cakchiquel who learns Spanish and moves to the city becomes a ladino. He is no longer indio. In Peru, Bolivia, Mexico, and elsewhere, millions of people who were indios just a few years ago are now officially campesinos. Bolivia has no more Anishinabegs, only peasants.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: These are Mestizos. 93% of Mexicans are Mestizos. Mestizos have European, African and Native American ancestry. They are not representative of the original native American population nor the original Black Native Americans. You live in a world of fantasy. Instead of posting picture spam you should study a people's history first. If you would have done this you would not be publishing spam.
Clyde you have to keep your misconceptions straight
The video web page you made to argue that there is genetic evidence for the presence of AFRICANS in Mexico, in fact, has papers primarily dealing with MESTIZOS, which mixed both Spanish and African (from slaves) genes. Therefore, they are not evidence for your claims. You disprove yourself.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: These are Mestizos. 93% of Mexicans are Mestizos. Mestizos have European, African and Native American ancestry. They are not representative of the original native American population nor the original Black Native Americans. You live in a world of fantasy. Instead of posting picture spam you should study a people's history first. If you would have done this you would not be publishing spam.
Clyde you have to keep your misconceptions straight
The video web page you made to argue that there is genetic evidence for the presence of AFRICANS in Mexico, in fact, has papers primarily dealing with MESTIZOS, which mixed both Spanish and African (from slaves) genes. Therefore, they are not evidence for your claims. You disprove yourself.
Not really. We find mtDNA Hg A among Mande in West Africa. This supports a pre-slavery connection between Africans and Amerinds.
posted
Clyde Mtdna hg A is Asian, you seem to have it confused with Y-haplogroup A which is African, jeez Clyde when will you ever learn? You seem to do this all the time.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Clyde Mtdna hg A is Asian, you seem to have it confused with Y-haplogroup A which is African, jeez Clyde when will you ever learn? You seem to do this all the time.
MOM718 you don't know what you're talking about
The evidence is clear mtDNA hg A is found in East and West Africa. It is found among the Mande speakers . Mande is a substratum of Mayan and Mixe languages.The genetic and linguistic data show a relationship.
posted
Total ignorance. The PRIMITIVE ancestors of the Whites came from Africa. So I guess in your skewed logic, all Europeans are REALLY Africans?! Dude..... YOU ARE DUMB.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Recovering Afro-holic: In your stupidity and attempts to deny the Afrocentric position. You have sought to deny the proven and obvious.
Whites originally CAME from Asia idiot!!
If your simple mind can provide an alternate place for their homeland, then please post it, I could use a good laugh.
posted
Why get on Clyde's case? He is the eventual outcome of all you Afro-idiots. Afrocentrism breeds mental insanity. Clyde claims all clades to African Blacks! Don't you see the method to his madness?! You better! Cause that is what you will be claiming very soon too! once the mental illness begins to set in.
BLACK WASHING HISTORY IS A MOTHA FVCKAH!
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Clyde Mtdna hg A is Asian, you seem to have it confused with Y-haplogroup A which is African, jeez Clyde when will you ever learn? You seem to do this all the time.
But since you seem to have accepted that the original Americans WERE Africans, and that the people at the time of Columbus were a MIXTURE of those Africans and subsequent migrants from Asia - and NOT a unique species.
With that as a foundation; It has been my position that the phenotype of the "North American" Indian, and others; suggests a Black/White mixture instead of the normal Black/Mongol mixture. Indicating a large White migration into the Americans, probably just before the Inuits.
Keeping in mind that Whites ARE Asians, do you have any thoughts?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Clyde Mtdna hg A is Asian, you seem to have it confused with Y-haplogroup A which is African, jeez Clyde when will you ever learn? You seem to do this all the time.
MOM718 you don't know what you're talking about
The evidence is clear mtDNA hg A is found in East and West Africa. It is found among the Mande speakers . Mande is a substratum of Mayan and Mixe languages.The genetic and linguistic data show a relationship.
MOM718 you are a:
.
Let's see Clyde. Your argument is that the Mande came over to the New World and that the Olmecs are therefore African. If so, they should carry the dominant African haplotypes, which are mtDNA L0,L1,L2. What you posted actually says:
In the Sierra Leone case ONE out of 276 samples was HgA, all the rest were L. In the Salas paper ONE out of 2847 samples was HgA and it was found in East Africa not in the Mande area. If Africans had come over before Columbus, what they would have contributed would have been HgLs.
Second, analysis of the genetics of Africans in the 21st century has nothing to say about what might have happened in 1200 BC.
Third, HgA is found all over the New World since it is one of the four founding haplotypes-- are you claiming that the Mande fertilized Native Americans from Canada to Patagonia?
Fourth, what your claim, if true, would really imply is that an Olmec carrying an HgA came to Sierra Leone and left her mtDNA there-- not the reverse.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Correct, the dominant African mtdna haplotypes are L, in both studies cited by Clyde only one individual carried HG A in each study, but Clyde doesn't understand his contradictions, if Africans were to contribute any Mtdna to the Americas it would be an L derivative.
He doesn't understand that Mtdna A is a dominant HG throughout the Americas and also appears in Siberia. This would certainly contradict his claim of them coming straight from Africa, because how did this haplogroup get all the way to Siberia? This would actually imply that the Mende traveled through N. east Asia into the Americas anyway, still not straight from Africa.
Not only one person in the Americas carry it, but instead it is the most common haplogroup among the Chukchis, Eskimos, Na-Denes, and many Amerind ethnic groups of North and Central America how does Clyde promote this? How does any sane person promote this?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^Correct, the dominant African mtdna haplotypes are L, in both studies cited by Clyde only one individual carried HG A in each study, but Clyde doesn't understand his contradictions, if Africans were to contribute any Mtdna to the Americas it would be an L derivative.
He doesn't understand that Mtdna A is a dominant HG throughout the Americas and also appears in Siberia. This would certainly contradict his claim of them coming straight from Africa, because how did this haplogroup get all the way to Siberia? This would actually imply that the Mende traveled through N. east Asia into the Americas anyway, still not straight from Africa.
Not only one person in the Americas carry it, but instead it is the most common haplogroup among the Chukchis, Eskimos, Na-Denes, and many Amerind ethnic groups of North and Central America how does Clyde promote this? How does any sane person promote this?
The Mande did travel into Northeast Asia. They founded the Xia Dynasty.
It is my opinion that the Amerind people are very recent migrants into Mexico.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^Correct, the dominant African mtdna haplotypes are L, in both studies cited by Clyde only one individual carried HG A in each study, but Clyde doesn't understand his contradictions, if Africans were to contribute any Mtdna to the Americas it would be an L derivative.
He doesn't understand that Mtdna A is a dominant HG throughout the Americas and also appears in Siberia. This would certainly contradict his claim of them coming straight from Africa, because how did this haplogroup get all the way to Siberia? This would actually imply that the Mende traveled through N. east Asia into the Americas anyway, still not straight from Africa.
Not only one person in the Americas carry it, but instead it is the most common haplogroup among the Chukchis, Eskimos, Na-Denes, and many Amerind ethnic groups of North and Central America how does Clyde promote this? How does any sane person promote this?
The Mande did travel into Northeast Asia. They founded the Xia Dynasty.
It is my opinion that the Amerind people are very recent migrants into Mexico.
.
Another example of Clyde making absurd distinctions that make absolutely no sense. What is an Amerind Clyde? The Americas have been populated for thousands of years and ALL of those people are native Americans. You and your attempts to separate these people into who is native and who is not is absurd. They are all native to the Americas and most of them came from Asia, including dark black aboriginal types and lighter skinned types as well.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^Correct, the dominant African mtdna haplotypes are L, in both studies cited by Clyde only one individual carried HG A in each study, but Clyde doesn't understand his contradictions, if Africans were to contribute any Mtdna to the Americas it would be an L derivative.
He doesn't understand that Mtdna A is a dominant HG throughout the Americas and also appears in Siberia. This would certainly contradict his claim of them coming straight from Africa, because how did this haplogroup get all the way to Siberia? This would actually imply that the Mende traveled through N. east Asia into the Americas anyway, still not straight from Africa.
Not only one person in the Americas carry it, but instead it is the most common haplogroup among the Chukchis, Eskimos, Na-Denes, and many Amerind ethnic groups of North and Central America how does Clyde promote this? How does any sane person promote this?
The Mande did travel into Northeast Asia. They founded the Xia Dynasty.
It is my opinion that the Amerind people are very recent migrants into Mexico.
.
Another example of Clyde making absurd distinctions that make absolutely no sense. What is an Amerind Clyde? The Americas have been populated for thousands of years and ALL of those people are native Americans. You and your attempts to separate these people into who is native and who is not is absurd. They are all native to the Americas and most of them came from Asia, including dark black aboriginal types and lighter skinned types as well.
Amerind is a term used to refer to Native Americans. If you knew anything about anthropology you would know this.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^Correct, the dominant African mtdna haplotypes are L, in both studies cited by Clyde only one individual carried HG A in each study, but Clyde doesn't understand his contradictions, if Africans were to contribute any Mtdna to the Americas it would be an L derivative.
He doesn't understand that Mtdna A is a dominant HG throughout the Americas and also appears in Siberia. This would certainly contradict his claim of them coming straight from Africa, because how did this haplogroup get all the way to Siberia? This would actually imply that the Mende traveled through N. east Asia into the Americas anyway, still not straight from Africa.
Not only one person in the Americas carry it, but instead it is the most common haplogroup among the Chukchis, Eskimos, Na-Denes, and many Amerind ethnic groups of North and Central America how does Clyde promote this? How does any sane person promote this?
The Mande did travel into Northeast Asia. They founded the Xia Dynasty.
It is my opinion that the Amerind people are very recent migrants into Mexico.
.
Another example of Clyde making absurd distinctions that make absolutely no sense. What is an Amerind Clyde? The Americas have been populated for thousands of years and ALL of those people are native Americans. You and your attempts to separate these people into who is native and who is not is absurd. They are all native to the Americas and most of them came from Asia, including dark black aboriginal types and lighter skinned types as well.
Amerind is a term used to refer to Native Americans. If you knew anything about anthropology you would know this.
.
OK and how did native Americans get to America only recently then? Who was there before then? I assume you are trying to claim that the people there before them were NON native Americans? In other words, the only people trying to claim anyone's identity is YOU as you said out of your own mouth that the people here from the first waves of migrations to the Americas were not native Americans.
That just sounds dumb.
And the only reason you would say something so ridiculous is because you want to label any blacks world wide no matter how long they have been there as Africans. Africa is a geological description of people and culture. People who have not been in Africa for many thousands of years ARE NOT AFRICANS. But in order to reinforce YOUR concept of what it means to be African and to fit ALL BLACKS worldwide into this definition you CONSTANTLY make retarded statements which only show you are DISTORTING the facts in order to make a point. Blacks have been in the Americas for over 15,000 years and most of them came from Asia where they had been 30,000 years before that. But you cant accept that, so you will simply say something ridiculous like, those first people in the Americas were not Native Americans, they were AFricans. Which implies that they simply sailed STRAIGHT from Africa to the Americas, which is BLATANTLY FALSE and you know it. And on top of that you are talking about people who have not been in Africa for many THOUSANDS of years, so what is the point of calling them African? The people who left Africa 60,000 years ago and settled the earth became the first Asians, the first Europeans the first Americans and so forth. And those aboriginal populations who still exist in those places therefore are RIGHTLY called natives of those places. To suggest other wise is to LOGICALLY be saying that they only got there YESTERDAY and came straight from Africa. THAT is how retarded you look by claiming the first people of the U.S. were not native Americans. The logic you typically use is that the first people were somehow killed off so any blacks in these places are simply recent migrants from Africa, with recent being within the last 2,000 years.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:OK and how did native Americans get to America only recently then? Who was there before then? I assume you are trying to claim that the people there before them were NON native Americans? In other words, the only people trying to claim anyone's identity is YOU as you said out of your own mouth that the people here from the first waves of migrations to the Americas were not native Americans.
That just sounds dumb.
And the only reason you would say something so ridiculous is because you want to label any blacks world wide no matter how long they have been there as Africans. Africa is a geological description of people and culture. People who have not been in Africa for many thousands of years ARE NOT AFRICANS. But in order to reinforce YOUR concept of what it means to be African and to fit ALL BLACKS worldwide into this definition you CONSTANTLY make retarded statements which only show you are DISTORTING the facts in order to make a point. Blacks have been in the Americas for over 15,000 years and most of them came from Asia where they had been 30,000 years before that. But you cant accept that, so you will simply say something ridiculous like, those first people in the Americas were not Native Americans, they were AFricans. Which implies that they simply sailed STRAIGHT from Africa to the Americas, which is BLATANTLY FALSE and you know it. And on top of that you are talking about people who have not been in Africa for many THOUSANDS of years, so what is the point of calling them African? The people who left Africa 60,000 years ago and settled the earth became the first Asians, the first Europeans the first Americans and so forth. And those aboriginal populations who still exist in those places therefore are RIGHTLY called natives of those places. To suggest other wise is to LOGICALLY be saying that they only got there YESTERDAY and came straight from Africa. THAT is how retarded you look by claiming the first people of the U.S. were not native Americans.
It is not dumb. You are ignorant of history.
Due to your ignorance you believe that Black people are a monolithic population and the people living around the world today are the descendants of the OOA population.
This is stupid there is no monolithic African population. The craniometric history of African show that several African populations developed in Africa including Australians, San, Pygmies (Twa/Anu people) and contemporary Africa.
Archaeology and skeletal remains make it clear that these populations migrated to other parts of the world. Since the first evidence of these populations come from Africa we know they did not develop in-situ.
In addition the classical literature makes it clear that the Kushites spread recently from Africa to Asia and Europe. Therefore when you claim there are no recent Africans outside Africa except for former slaves you demonstrate that you are a brain washed coconut or European who believes only what he has been taught by the Academy. You are a sad deluded fool.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: It is not dumb. You are ignorant of history.
Due to your ignorance you believe that Black people are a monolithic population and the people living around the world today are the descendants of the OOA population.
This is stupid there is no monolithic African population. The craniometric history of African show that several African populations developed in Africa including Australians, San, Pygmies (Twa/Anu people) and contemporary Africa.
Archaeology and skeletal remains make it clear that these populations migrated to other parts of the world. Since the first evidence of these populations come from Africa we know they did not develop in-situ.
In addition the classical literature makes it clear that the Kushites spread recently from Africa to Asia and Europe. Therefore when you claim there are no recent Africans outside Africa except for former slaves you demonstrate that you are a brain washed coconut or European who believes only what he has been taught by the Academy. You are a sad deluded fool.
.
Your babblement makes absolutely no sense. Just like I said you continue to make up nonsense in order to make any and all blacks outside of Africa RECENT migrants from Africa. And to do this you keep making up all sorts of nonsense to make it seem that black folks who migrated out of Africa 60,000 years ago are somehow STILL AFRICANS 60,000 years later. The Aborigines of Australia and the people of New Guinea have not been in Africa for upwards of 50,000 years. They are not Africans, they are native Australians and Native Asians. They are representative of the FIRST Asians. Your claim is that somehow they are not Asian and Australian because 60,000 years ago they came from Africa AND because they are STILL BLACK. That is nonsense Clyde and you know it. But your words above hide your true intent, which is to somehow make all blacks world wide recent migrants from Africa, when they aren't.
The first people of the Americas were like the aborigines of Australia and Asia and they did NOT come directly from Africa 15,000 years ago. They came from Asia.
And Clyde all humans derive from OOA migrations, the earliest being 60,000 years ago. Later waves of Africans would not have been FIRST to any part of the planet. Therefore, trying to pretend that blacks only got to the Americas with later waves of African migrants directly is stupid. What about the aboriginal blacks that were already there Clyde, like the Aborigines of Australia? Blacks have been in Asia for 60,000 years Clyde, they didn't just get there with the arrival of recent migrants from Africa.
That is what I mean by you distorting the facts and making blacks from the first wave of OOA migrants simply disappear so that you can force all blacks worldwide to be some sort of evidence of recent African migrations within the last few thousand years. That is blatantly false.
Blacks with aboriginal African like features have been in the Americas and Asia since the beginning. Therefore, the idea that somehow black African looking people in the Americas are not natives is simply FALSE. They have been there forever. Yes, lighter skinned populations from Asia also came to the Americas but they are no more native than the black aboriginal types already there. And they certainly did not wipe out those aboriginals either. Therefore, it is not true that the blacks in ancient Olmec and Mexican artwork are simply migrants from Africa. Not only are there black populations in the America today who have little to no African blood, but there were a whole lot more before the natives were exterminated by the Europeans.
I don't doubt for a second that Africans made it to the Americas in the years before Columbus. However, they did not bring black skin to the Americas, it was already there.
Bottom line, all human features originate in Africa, except white skin. Therefore, your attempts to lump together certain features as a marker of Africanness is simply another form mimicking the racialists doctrines of racists. Africa has the most diverse set of features on the planet and everyone else is a subset of that diversity, white, brown or otherwise.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do you act shocked or amazed with Clyde Winters? Afrocentrism breeds mental insanity. Clyde is the epitome and eventuality of the Afrocentrist. What he is doing is no different from the Afronuts on the board. He's only magnified the afrocentric madness 10 fold.
While the majority Afronuts Black wash history by claiming all people of color as "Black," Clyde on the other hand is not about to waste time lollygagging. He sees the prize (Black Supremacy) and is going for it. He is claiming every damn culture, people and ancient civilizations as "African" (LOL).
Yall kats are funny like a mofo (LOL)!
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Your babblement makes absolutely no sense. Just like I said you continue to make up nonsense in order to make any and all blacks outside of Africa RECENT migrants from Africa. And to do this you keep making up all sorts of nonsense to make it seem that black folks who migrated out of Africa 60,000 years ago are somehow STILL AFRICANS 60,000 years later. The Aborigines of Australia and the people of New Guinea have not been in Africa for upwards of 50,000 years. They are not Africans, they are native Australians and Native Asians. They are representative of the FIRST Asians. Your claim is that somehow they are not Asian and Australian because 60,000 years ago they came from Africa AND because they are STILL BLACK. That is nonsense Clyde and you know it. But your words above hide your true intent, which is to somehow make all blacks world wide recent migrants from Africa, when they aren't.
The first people of the Americas were like the aborigines of Australia and Asia and they did NOT come directly from Africa 15,000 years ago. They came from Asia.
And Clyde all humans derive from OOA migrations, the earliest being 60,000 years ago. Later waves of Africans would not have been FIRST to any part of the planet. Therefore, trying to pretend that blacks only got to the Americas with later waves of African migrants directly is stupid. What about the aboriginal blacks that were already there Clyde, like the Aborigines of Australia? Blacks have been in Asia for 60,000 years Clyde, they didn't just get there with the arrival of recent migrants from Africa.
That is what I mean by you distorting the facts and making blacks from the first wave of OOA migrants simply disappear so that you can force all blacks worldwide to be some sort of evidence of recent African migrations within the last few thousand years. That is blatantly false.
Blacks with aboriginal African like features have been in the Americas and Asia since the beginning. Therefore, the idea that somehow black African looking people in the Americas are not natives is simply FALSE. They have been there forever. Yes, lighter skinned populations from Asia also came to the Americas but they are no more native than the black aboriginal types already there. And they certainly did not wipe out those aboriginals either. Therefore, it is not true that the blacks in ancient Olmec and Mexican artwork are simply migrants from Africa. Not only are there black populations in the America today who have little to no African blood, but there were a whole lot more before the natives were exterminated by the Europeans.
I don't doubt for a second that Africans made it to the Americas in the years before Columbus. However, they did not bring black skin to the Americas, it was already there.
Bottom line, all human features originate in Africa, except white skin. Therefore, your attempts to lump together certain features as a marker of Africanness is simply another form mimicking the racialists doctrines of racists. Africa has the most diverse set of features on the planet and everyone else is a subset of that diversity, white, brown or otherwise.
Dr. Winters. I think you do splendid work and quite agree that there was (for the time it occurred) recent migration from Africa to Mesoamerica. You video (I am referring to the work minus the pages I designed) is elucidating and a welcome contribution to the stock of knowledge.
FOR OTHERS: These trans-Atlantic crossings took place often when storms would capture fishing boats off the coast of Africa and they'd end up in the Caribbean and Mexico. They took place over the long course of history and in recent times as well. Those currents learned through accidents no doubt became knowledge of the ocean that would be put to use when desired for planned voyages.
Columbus and Cortez were some of the most unfortunate examples of those who used African knowledge of seafaring and the ships Africans would make to get Europeans into the Americas where they did their murderous work.
Dr. Winters. You handle the incessant chatter well of those who'd try to throw obstacles in your path.
Carry on. The sun still rises amid the noises greeting it.
Marc
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic