All Black People Descended From Africa #2

Sista (f)
<sup>Oakland Ca. USA
Posts: 2375

 Online

  All Black People Descended From Africa #2
« on: August 14, 2006, 01:04 AM » 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the bottom  
 
 Report to moderator    Logged 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Always love your brothers and sisters.</sup>


All blacks are from Africa. 

@ oyinboaja 


Prove it!

I may be wrong, but  I also agree with the poster that all blacks came from Africa. Chiefly among the spread of blacks in the diaspora was the slave trade.

Hmmm, this would make an interesting research on whether all blacks are from AFrica or not.

@ Dozman 95% of Papua New Guineans are Melanesians(Which I covered)

Most African Americans, especially the one s who are a result of the slave trade, they are descendants of Africans who came from Africa.


Also Donzman, you have not covered anything that has not been covered in the past by me and Drusilla. Drusilla has a blog which everyone can go to and see all the different black people of the world she posted. some of them Africans, some of them not.

We talked a while back about the Aborigines and the people from New Guinea. I don't know how true this is but it is said that African slaves were brought to Papua New Guinea. There is a place in African called Guinea. I wonder if New Guinea was named after the people who inhabit the Guinea parts of Africa, one never really knows.


If the world was not separated as it is now, in other words, when you look at your map, it is said that at one time the world was not spilt up as it is now and as time goes on, it will continue to stretch even further from Continent to Continent and from Island to Island. If at one time the continents and islands were close to each other, that would have put Australia and Papua New Guinea directly at the bottom or directly close to the right of Southern Africa. Just take a look at your map and you will see.

It is a no doubt that black people out number white skin people on this planet. In fact, white people are the minority. Most Islands and Continents (accept for Europe) consist of black, Brown and Reddish Brown indigenous black people, even Asia.

Yeah those guys deserve a unique racial category. . . Blonde hair with black African face, very interesting stuff.

There were Black Indigenous people in America before Columbus.

Black Califonians may have left Africa before the Europeans knew Africa and gave it the name.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/ancientamerica.htm

The ancient black people of America must have been assimilated by the black people who came later.

i read somewhere some time ago where they said that when travelers/settlers came to new guinea ( at the time there  was no name for that island yet.) they came to realize that the inhabitants of that island resemble those from guinea,africa( in facial looks and everything else) thus naming that island papua new guinea. i think the word 'papua' had something to do with their skin color and 'new guinea' with their features.

That is Rhetoric. Melanesian Papua New Guineans, have being living on the Island of New Guinea before they even knew who white people were, so how could they have being brought to New Guinea from Africa. When the transportation of slaves is was and always will be of the white man. Papua New Guinea or Papua Zi Nouvelle Guinea was named by explorers because the area reminded them of Guinea, and that's where the relationship with Guinea ends!!


Source?

Papua New Guineans may have a connection to Africa but it is not through slavery. And the relationship is directly linked to that of the Aboriginals in Australia. The Islands of Australia and New Guinea where once one huge land mass known as (something that starts with S) Anyways, there was a time when Australia, New Guinea, Madagascar and Antarctica where one land mass.

The people of Madagascar look more like Melanesians than your Average African. It doesn't take a genius to realize that the inhabitants of New Guinea and Australia could have originated from Madagascar. Simple, but here is the dilemma, the people of New Guinea couldn't have originated directly from Madagascar, because research tells us that they migrated from S.East Asia. They must have being nomads that migrated from Eastern Africa (Somalia, Eritrea Djibouti, Kenya etc). They must have ventured through S.East Asia and found their way to New Guinea.

Lingustic, Religeous and  property observations show that they have lost tourch with the Africa. Their languages differ, their religions do, the way they construct their house differ. Even their diets differ. They must have migrated from East Africa to New Guinea over a long period of time. The Aboriginals must have being of the same race, as the people that first inhabited ew Guinea, they must have adopted new religions when Australia broke off from New Guinea.

The people of Papua Guinea, West Papua, Samoa, Tonga, Kiribati, Tuvalu and Maoris etc etc. did not come directly from Africa as I said earlier they must have migrated from East Africa and intermarried with Asians as in the case of Samoans and Maoris etc. But it isn't right for us to directly associate these peoples with Africa. It's like associating South Africans with the sudanese. Yes Black south Africans originated from the Bantus who came from Nigeria and Cameroon and other parts of Central Africa, and yes the Bantus originated from the Kush Valley. But this happened a long time ago. And taking into consideration; the economic situation that most of Africa is in, it wouldn't be a good idea to walk up to islanders saying you are from Africa.

I don't think all people originated from Africa. You can say that Jamaicans did (Obviously they were slaves), African Americans, Black West Indians etc. and maybe even now we can say Aboriginals, Micronesians, polynesians and melanesians do, but there is still the case of Indians and other peoples that originated from the sub-continent.

@Neferyn



Any black or brown person would be way much more closer to Aborigines way before they would be close or closer to Europeans. In fact, just who are Europeans close to in origin? Europeans have even written books saying that they just "sprung up from out of no where." They admit to springing up while at the same time not giving Africa credit for their origin.


What?


Are you trying to say that around North India and Pakistan is the origin of Europeans and Australian Aborigines?


Also, why is it that Europeans feel as though, it is only their opinion on where humans originate, from that matter? I wish when Europeans do their so called exploring and human origin investigations, they would take out the time to ask Aborigines and Africans, all those people they study. Ask them exactly what is their idea on where humans originated from. Ask them where they know or believe Europeans originated from as well. Ask them where do they feel or know they themselves originated from. Europeans only do a lot of speculating, they don't get all people of all races involved in this plight to discover just where humans originate from. Europeans really don't want to know because they are afraid of what they will find out. Meanwhile, they go about trying to change the nature of what would have been had all not bee interupted by them.

It's not ideology, but pretty well established science. The question is not whether all of humankind originated in African, but rather how the peopling of the world from those African origins happened.

The evidence is really conclusive as far as evidence goes. In science you'll never be able to prove anything for 100%, but 99.9% would do, wouldn't it.

Of course I thought it was a semantic slip of the pen. Anyway, do you have any sources?

That's a naive point of view. On the surface, this may look this way, but when looking at the genetic markers it becomes obvious that similar phenotypical expressions can come from a different genotypical basis. When looking at similarities in non coding DNA (which is changing at a constant mutation rate), you can trace back when different populations diverged. That's why genetically speaking European populations are equally close to African populations as Aborigine populations, as both stem from the same out of Africa wave. What is most remarkable is that some African populations (the out of Africa source populations) are genetically far more distant from other African populations than they are from Europeans, Chinese or Aborigines

I think I just answered that question.

You cannot use the writings of some past or present racist loonies to establish a general point. You'll always have nutcases that try to push an insane agenda. The fact that these exist does not, in any way, invalidate proper research. Only recently (the past 10-20 years) have we established the instruments that allow us to look at the true origins of humankind and the genetic differences between populations. All what came before was mere speculation.

Indeed, as I explained before. You may have some ideological bias against those research findings, but ideology doesn't invalidate scientific evidence.

No. European and Eastern Oriental people find their origins in the northern Indian region, the Aborigines probably migrated through the coastal regions of India. They were one of the first groups to split off from the bulk of the Out of Africa group

It has nothing to do with opinions, but with scientific research. Everyone is free to challenge the findings on scientific grounds. Unfortunately, due to their financial muscle, it is mostly westerners that do the research. That in itself is no reason to discredit the findings though, but is can be a reason for extra scrutiny. The problem is mainly one of focus: what is researched and what not.
But then again this problem is far more poignant in social sciences than it is in exact or life sciences (such as population genetics)

That's just ideological male bovine excrement. It has nothing to do with science. It may be relevant historically, anthropologically and sociologically, but it is not going to change the facts. The study of human origins has long left the bastions of ideologically motivated racist Victorian 'science'. There are some tiny pockets of ideologically motivated resistance left (e.g. the multi-regionalists), but they have no case whatsoever.

the human race originated from Africa. And we all looked "black" or brown.

The question is.
How did some of us get "white"?

Due to the low population of Australian aborigines, it is easy to be overwhelmed with new migrants ("whites").
The Blonde aborigines of Australia are a result of racial mixing with "whites".

On the other hand. African Americans where Africans sold to slavery between 1400 and 19th Century.

All over the world the mixing of "races" will continue but not along the lines previously defined by land. Now we fly to where ever.

we should try to appreciate those of us in Africa now and Africans that appreciate us in dispora. There's no need for those that don't belong because it will look like we'r trying to force them or something. We definately need our African unity to be more broad, innovative, and like their skin and their land.
Blacks that are not in Africa today and deny us today are not and will never be our problem. Matter of fact, we should have our identity documented for historical purposes. When Africa will start having major developments and revolutionizing all the industries with our resources those same deniers will be the first to try linking the bond that has and have binded us together just like they 'r trying to forge ties to the whites and others.

Anyone who claims that white people are inferior is just one part racist and three parts bitter. 

Skin colour does not determine superiority or inferiority.

Some people are indeed superior to others, but only in certain aspects of life.

For example,Stephen Hawkings is superior to most of us in this forum as far as intellect is concerned

But most of us are physically superior to him because he suffers from physical disability.

It has nothing to do with race.

And if you MUST claim that one race should be seen as superior, well, the whites have proven time and time again that they are far better than us at mass murder and genocide, and if anyone can get away with claiming to be superior to his fellow man, it is a person with superior combat ability.

Just stop saying you are superior to the white man. That's stupid. No race is superior or inferior.