₦airaland Forum

Amujale:
[flash=250,250]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMg-79AzbI4[/flash]

So the critic of the above video goes as follows.

Sertima agrees with the 100,000 to 200,000 time line of Anatomically modern man aka Homo Sapien sapien-check

Sertima does not agree with 50 million time line for humans on the earth. Time line still is 3 million years ago.-check.

Sertima says the "continental "African sailed to the new world 1000 of years before. The critic of this would be that if that is so then the Native indians genetic material would have been influenced by the genetic material of the Africans who arrived and settled on the continent. Genetics debunks assertion. There is no link on a genetic level.

Sertima claims Africans of the "continental" type existed in the Americas pre columbus. He dismisses the claim that these Africoid types in the new world were mongoloids with similar features as contemporary Africans. He supports this using archealogical and linguistic evidence i.e. The Olmec statues. Braided hair, word similarities with African languages etc.

Update 2019: Genetic studies show that the oldest fossils of humans found in the Americas continue to be consistent of the Native American genotype irrespective of cranio-metric and body morphology.

What this means is that there are non African peoples who share similar physical appearances with "contemporary" Africans however they are not African people on a genetic level. They continue to be consistent genetically with people from their region.

What this means is that a papau new guinean and an Aboriginal Australian who are from Asia will have genetic types similar to an indonesian or malaysian or a Sri lakan more so than a cotemporary AFrican. Therefore they are Asian.


Sertima was limited during his time to new information on genetic studies which is deeper in analysis than a phenotypical classifications of people into small groupings such as Negro, Negrito, Black etc.

Again the picture of these people below only contains "one person" who is an African genetically. The rest are non African peoples. Can you spot the one who is African?

Amujale:
Answer me these questions morpheus24

Can you read properly?

Can you understand what you read properly?


What is it that you assume i am trying to articulate in my post?

Maybe you can't understand it but if you need clarification we can delve deeper into it.

All your posts are claiming Eurocentrism but at the same time using science in the same manner as those you accuse, skewing data and scientific information to bolster a certain narrative. Data is Data and must be viewed as objectively as possible so we get the truth of matters.

Anything else is Scientific heresy be it Eurocentrism or Afrocentrism.

Amujale:
You are a complete dunce. The third time you will bring your warped underdtanding to the forum, you are a dunce, scrounger of other peoples concepts.

You are a disgrace to all the senses.

In the course of our discussions you have shown to be untrustorthy and unreliable.

1. Genetic studies continues to trump a lot of Amuja mumbo jumbo which is why he cannot argue on that level.

2. The truth is Homo sapien sapien did evolve in Africa. There is no evidence however that these Homos sapiens looked exactly as we do today. There is suggestion that they looked 'similar to us'.

3. There are several types of Africans that existed in Africa with different genotypes and different phenotypes, the most successful to populate the entire continent being the Bantu who were the majority that were taken to the new world.

4. Any fossils found outside of Africa have been Genotyped and all of them continue to show genetic material specific to their locations regardless of cranio-metric morphology or their similarities to African phenotypes. What this implies is that they are not of the same stock as contemporary Africans, they infact are more similar to people from their specific loci.

5. Amujale is spewing mumbo jumbo Afrocentric history that cannot be substantiated beyond a presentation of Youtube Videos from the early 1990's, when Afrocentrism was at its peak.

6. Amujale, if you can please present your evidence and I will refute it, otherwise please avail yourself of new studies on Genetics, it will be helpful in your future arguement.


Sincerely Morpheus the dunce!

Amujale:
[s]According to the Paleoclimatic history of our world, the "Out of Africa" experience occurs during the period denoting the Wurum Inter-Stadio. It was said that the Phenoms got caught up in an Ice box.[/s]

Complete gibberish with no contextualization.

Anthropological studies and archaelogical studies "European mans" science all mention this.

Amujale:
[s]Once the Ice Age passed, many Africans turned into white Europeans and Asians (there are a combination of conditions that allows for such to happen); whilst a few retained their complextions throughout the entire period. Those that retained their African features are known to us as the 1%.[/s]

No context, just gibberish again. Explain to us the process of their transformation from African to European?

Amujale:
No sensible academic anywhere in the world can deny the fact that every human on earth came as a result of Africa.

This is not in denial, however an African who left Africa and became something else Andaman islander, Fijian, Eskimo, Ainu, European, Asian is no longer an African.

Phenotype is not Genotype.

Amujale:
[s]Every ethnic group present in the world today are as a result of Africans and their rich history[/s]

Every human on this earth today are a result of the Homo Sapien sapien species who left Africa and those that stayed in Africa as well.

All these groups of people both outside and inside of Africa all experienced multiple adaptations and mutations. They changed both phenotypically and genotypically as well . Therefore we are all progenitors of these Homo sapiens. Everyone is Africa. duh!

Amujale:
Obviously you do NOT.

Assuming you possess the knowledge that you claim, then you would be aware of the jargons and the timeline of the true chronology of the Ages used in the determination of World History.

Since you dont even know that according to your own Eurocentric ideology humans have been around for over 50 million years.

You are poorly read on World History.

SMH.

You are filibustering now. The time line I am aware of that has been peer reviewed by all scientist sblack, white, yellow and brown all place it at 3 million years old, which is in of itself "a theoritcal timeline" with additional fossil evidence that supports it. The rest of any other theory you see that dates people to 50 million years ago is mumbo jumbo that takes information out of context to fit their narrative as you are doing right now.

You are picking and choosing to fit what you want something to say but in reality if tested out will fall short again and again. This is why genetics trumps all the nonsense you are arguing and is so far the strongest evidence out there to corroborate scientific theory.

Amujale:
That is due to the fact that you possesd a Eurocentric view of World History that is itself anti-African.

I put it to you that your viewpoint on Afican History is Eurocentric, warped and unfit for African purpose.

Theres no amount evidence one would provide your kind of warped anti-African mentality that could wash all the toxins to allow for common sense.

I leave you to wallow in your ignorance.

You are strawman arguing now. Forget about the Eurocentrics. Where is the independent African studies that says Man is 50 million years old. Cheikh Antia Diop does not say this, he arguements were agains the Eurocentric view points of Egyptology. He doesnt quote any where that says man is 50 million years old., if he did please point me to it.

Amujale:
And i direct you to go and check our previous discussion, there you will find sources of learned academics and historians i acredit to these historical facts e.g Cheikh Anta Diop, Ivan Van Sertima, Dr Ray Haggins, Paul Barton e.t.c

Assuming you are searching for more Eurocentric sources, then i cannot help you.

Good luck with your Eurocentric viewpoint on World History but i do NOT prescribe to that.

Cheers

Where do these academic quote 50 million years for the age of Man. You are red herring now by trying to direct the argument towards a so called "eurocentric view point'. Forget about the European, tell me what study dates humans back to 50 millions years by an African author. You are posting Youtube videos with information dating back to the 1990's.

Amujale:
Honestly you are loosing the plot, going to end our conversation here.

If you want the answer to your questions my advice is to study

Go and study a degree level in any of the disciplines i sighted earlier and get back to me with your findings.



More importantly, study World History according to African historians and academics.

So you are assuming that I don't have rudimentary knowledge on each of the disciplines you listed.

Please pic one of the disciplines and pic a specific "research basis" and tell us here where you got that information from. I didn't tell you to quote the whole of anthropological information out there.

I asked you to simply direct me to what article dates human beings to 50 million years ago and how did they come about that date. All i need is a reference not an Afrocentric Youtube video on the critics of Eurocentric egyptology studies.

Amujale:
We've had that discussion already follow the link here:


Cheers!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk9IqMz6IDs

A complete waste of my time watching this video. None of this is new or relevant information in 2019 and here are the reasons why taking from points discussed in the video:

1. 55,000 time line for the emergence of Europeans/White Skin. This is confirmed by "European science" and is based off genetic studies of how old the gene that triggers skin pigmentation "SLC24A5" was dispersed and activated more so in Europe and Asia.

https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-genes-for-white-skin-didnt-develop-in-europe-upenn-study-finds

"Researchers collected genetic material from 1,570 Africans. They studied their genomes, examining 4 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in all. These are areas along the genome where a gene has been altered. From there, they identified the four key areas responsible for the variation in skin pigmentation. What surprised researchers most was that the gene SLC24A5—responsible for light skin, thought to have developed in Europe, is actually very common in Africa."

2. First black man 150,000 years ago. Also confirmed by "European science". Homo sapien sapien's emergence dated back to this time. Prior that the rest of the theory names other types of species of Humans that populated the earth. There is no confirmation that these other species of Humans were black and they all died out therefore all humans today are of one stock not multiple stocks of humans or hominids


3.Albino gene- The Albino gene is not triggered by the same gene that gives color pigmentation to humans. It is a lack thereof of Melanin, therefore it is not responsible for the color pigmentation in White people. "Melanin is an organic pigment that produces most of the colour seen in mammals. Depending on how it is created, melanin comes in two colour ranges, eumelanin (producing dark browns and blacks) and pheomelanin (producing light reddish tans and blondes)". Therefore White people have melanin but a different form of it


4. African contributions to science via and Egypt_ This is not in contention and studies on Khemetic science, the metu neter exposes how many egyptian elements are present in modern day history and knowledge
Isis or Asat and horus- Mary Jesus connection.

5. The oldest fossil found in Africa is not a Homo Sapien/black person or the first black person. She is an australopithecus, A type of archaic human that existed in Africa. Again Lucy was not a Homo Sapien, she does not share any genetic material that is common to all humans today any more so than a monkey sharing genetics with Humans today.


I did not hear anything about 50 million years for black people being around. All this guy is talking about is outdated. Please update your studies. These videos were made quite a long time ago and more information is actually present today that debunks and clarifies a lot of what he talks about.

This is no more than an afrocentric tilt to scientific information that was established in the 1990's.

I am about to watch the second video and critic it. if you wish to debate me please pick a specific subject matter from the video and we can go into detailed information.

Amujale:
These are good questions that you find the answer to by studying Anthropology, Palentology, Biology, Morphology, Anatomical and Genetics sciences.

Its from the combination of the studies in these disciplines that help historians to identify with their timeline that outlines these same major world events.
i.e The Paleocene.

Humans are said to have first appear in African fossill records over 50 million years ago dating back to the Paleogene Period.

So in other words, you don't know where to reference me to. You need to update your knowledge honestly or you will continue to come off as an Afrocentrist regurgitating information you pulled un-verifed sources on the internet.

Amujale:
According to Genetics studies the earliest fossils appear in Paleocene over 50 millon years ago.

Due to misinformation and distortion of foreign commentary on African history, most of these numbers arent known to African historians as an absolute, yet most that arent outrageuosly falsified are taken as the conservative numbers that they probably are.

What "genetic studies" are you referencing. Who conducted this research, where is it published ?

This fossil that is over 50 million years ago, is it a human fossil. IF so where is this fossil located. What is the name of it and how was it determined to be 50 million years old?

Amujale:
The concept of Almighty God is African.

I am NOT interested in turning the discussion into are you a believer in God.

Theres much that we agree on, i will rather focus our energy on those.


. Africans have been in existence before Western records began, over 50 million years ago.

. By ways of the "Out of Africa" experience, Asians and Europeans arrived into the world 100,000 - 200,000 years ago..

. 50% of World History occurs exclusively within the African continent.

. Africans are the first people to arrive and populate all the continents of the world.

. All peoples in the world today can trace their genetic make up to African ethnicity.

Please reference me to where you are getting all this info. The 50 million years. the arrival on each continent and how all people trace thier genetic make up to Africa. I would like to see it.

gatiano:
4.5 million is other races record. Black man in His own account said - Earth is 76 trillion years old, Its nucleus which is the sun is 78 trillion years old, The galaxy- milky way about 933 trillion years old; and Black People were existing prior to them.

What ever you are smoking. I need some right now just to wrap my head around these numbers.

Amujale:
Given our Earth is 4.5 billion years old and humans appear over 50 million years ago.

Africans have been in existence before European records began, over 50 million years ago.

By ways of the "Out of Africa" experience, Asians and Europeans arrived into the world 100,000 - 200,000 years ago..

Clearly, 50% is a conservative figure.

I would like you to reference what books date humans back to 50 million years ago

Amujale:
Thats because West Asia can trace their genetic make up from Ethiopians, its just like that throughout Africa ethnicity. Similarly caucasian insist they can trace their genetic make to West Africa an Ethiopia.

How did they trace their genetick makeup to Ethiopians. Claims with no evidence.

Amujale:
African people are the first people God created, and through them came all other ethnicities

These are substantiated with Anthropolpgy, Archeaology, Geology and World history; they all corroborate with the "Out Of Africa" phenomenon that occured thousands upon thousands of years ago.

You are an Olodo. On the one hand you quote "God created" and then on the other hand accept the premise of other "disciplines" that date mans history way back to 1 million years ago. It is one or the other. You can't use white mans knowledge on one hand and on the other hand quote your mumbo jumbo.

Amujale:
We know the specific periods when every ethnic group moved out of Africa. For instance, by using low-tech scientific apparatus are able to determine when the current stock of Asians and Australasians left the continent and their state of mind at the time.

If you know can you quote it here for me. Please do it per each "ethnic" group. Specific time period and how they ended up in the areas that they are in using your African studies

Amujale:
According to the Paleoclimatic history of our world, the "Out of Africa" experience occurs during the period denoting the Wurum Inter-Stadio. It was said that the Phenoms got caught up in an Ice box.

The only two intelligible parts above are where you mention "ancient climate" and the "out of africa' theory of Human dispersal. The rest of the statement got me scratching my head

The out of Africa theory dates human dispersal out of africa at about 100,000-150,000 years ago, some researches stretch it as far back as 200,000 years.

Amujale:
They live within the ever so hospitable ice; an enviroment dominated by Icy conditions for over a milenia.

Once the Ice Age passed, many Africans turned into white Europeans and Asians (there are a combination of conditions that allows for such to happen); whilst a few retained their complextions throughout the entire period. Those that retained there African features are known to us as the 1%.

The Out of Africa theory also incorporates Humans that lived outside of Africa who unfortunately became extinct. There is genetic evidence however that the new incomers to Europe did mate with their Human counterparts but only in very small amounts.

You say Africans changed into White Europeans and Asians yet fail to mention the mechanism as to how this happens.

Let me break it down for you my friend. As populations migrate to different areas, they develop new adaptations and mutations, some advantageous and others not. These mutations manifest genetically and pheno-typically as well.

The mutations and adaptations that are advantageous are selected via genetic drift and sexual selection and diet. In other words if a bunch of people lived in an area where all the food was high on trees and only the tallest people in the group were the best climbers, women would marry and interbreed with this individuals more so than any other group of men, leaving the shorter men in the groups genes to drift and die off.

If this continues over a long period of time the population would have a unique or specific genetic and physical appearance. The gene that is present for causing light skin is actual mapped out and present in many peoples outside of Africa. Africans also have this particular gene but in its earlier form which is why Africans also display different shades of color as well.

Amujale:
50% of World History occurs exclusively within the African continent.

I don't know what this means so I will just leave it alone

Amujale:
No sensible academic anywhere in the world can deny the fact that every human on earth came as a result of Africa.

Every ethnic group present in the world today are as a result of Africans and their rich history.

This is true but again you are reading this information incorrectly. These Africans 150,000 are your and every other persons ancestors.

What this means is that the same group of people that made you as a contemporary African also had a hand in making every other person round the world. All these other people are the children of the first Africans that left the continent as much as you are the child of the Africans that remained on the continent.

You simply retained more genetic material that was passed over by your ancestors that remained on the continent. the remaining Africans that left had genetics that mutated and changed causing both genetic difference as well as physical differences.

This point keeps flying over your head. An aboriginal Australian is not an African genetically even though he retains certain phenotypical traits that are still present in African today.

An Andamese islander is not an African genetically, he actually shares more genetic material to The Ainu of Japan than he does with a present day Africa even though the Andaman islander retains certain phenotypical traits that exist in Africa today.

A European persons genetic material is closer to that of an African than an Aboriginal Australian even though the Aborignal looks more like you. (Please let this sink into your brain).

A lot of Ethiopians have 50% genetic material from West Asia and the other 50% from Africa yet they are physically more African looking.


In other words of these three pictures below one Andaman islander, One Melanasian Fijian and the last one a Nigerian, only one of them is a true Africa in terms of genetics. The rest share genetic material with people from their respective areas irrespective of physical appearance.

jln115:
It's actually people like you I can't have a discussion with!

He is focused on his tribal hatred for Northerners who continue to be more politically savvy and projects that hatred on me, forgetting that I potentially may be from any of the remaining 100+ tribal groups in the country who to him are of no consequence.


IQ level for this one, not so high!

Johncables402:
Why are you explaining yourself to a motorcycle driver ?. There is no reasonable discussion you can have with that herdsmen , all they know is blaming the British instead of giving educated and industrious tribes the chance to takeover the country .

blah..blah..blah….blah...blah blah blah blah blah....blah...blah...blah...


Yaba left is waiting for you.

Johncables402:
What is a herdsman's problem with whites in South Africa? . Did they take your money or job?. Nonsense , instead of focusing on killer Zulus.

blah blah blah blah....blah..blah …...blah.....blah..... blah.blah………..blah....blah....blah.....balah….blah.....

codemaniacs:
I clicked it... its filled with nonsense...

at least you admit Africans left Africa on their own.....

you're right.... its gibberish...

One line comments with no substance.

I asked you at what point in time did Africans populate each of the other continents. Where is the fossil evidence to support, where is th DNA evidence to support where is the archaeological evidence to support.

Who decimated these African populations and when did this occur?

The people that decimated this African population, Where did they come from Mars, Jupiter?

You are here telling us Tales by moonlight stories.

jln115:
The reason the DA lost votes is pretty simple.......they reinvented itself from a true liberal Alternative, to an ANC lite, They did this to win disillusioned ANC voters during the Zuma years, this strategy could of actually worked if it was Zuma(not Jacob but his ex wife) that won at the ANCs National conference , what they unfortunately did not bank on was an ANC that could turn itself around, an ANC that would elect a President that the DA has publicly endorsed.

It was quite clear even for an outsider like me to predict that Ramaphosa had a far better shot at winning at the ANC's National conference than Dlamini-Zuma so the DA strategically should have anticipated and planned for that.

I agree. The parties internal struggles followed by an identity crisis did put off many voters and did loose, I would assume stunch neo-liberals like yourself but then again that would be expected in a party that had its inception in "white liberalism" without taking into account or mis diagnosing the palpitations of the countries issues.

I read "I write what I like" by Steve Biko a few years back and he articulates this "white liberal" paradigm that is evident and still present in the politics of the DA.

So not only did they lose those ANC votes they hoped to gain but also lost a substantial number of their traditional supporter base who were not looking to vote for another ANC but a true liberal party with it's own unique policies and ideas.

Through in a few scandals, corruption cases and in fighting and it's no surprise they lost votes......and I am one of those Votes that they lost.

codemaniacs:
after they've stayed in Africa for more than 1000 years, someone like you will try their best to prove that the europeans are from south Africa...

you could be a white supremacist trying his best to rubbish African history...

I guess you didn't click on the attached thread and simply want to argue for the sake of it

codemaniacs:
Africans at a time in history occupied all the other continents on earth but ethnic cleansing from the europeans has reduced the population of Africans... ethnic cleansing and identity theft...

At what point in history did these "Africans" populate all the other continents? Give me a date or time frame.


Melanated people (people of colour) are the majority phenotype in the world today so I don't know what you mean by ethnic cleansing.


The Africans that left the continent postulated at about 100,00- 150,000 years ago became something else after separating from the continent. The people that were left on the continent for that same amount of time are the ancestors of the present day or contemporary Africans you see today, so stop with this Gibberish.

Lionessza6:
LMFAO, uneducated baboons?. This comes from a chimpanzee whose party the DA is lead by "illiterates " like john steen-something who does not even have a matric certificate? . The audacity of this European thug . I might not be a follower of Malema but I definitely identify with many things that he says, and I'm happy that the EFF is showing the youth that you can still pursue your education even if you earn close to a million rands a year. By the way ,most of those baboons have degrees, some are even PhD holders unlike the Cape town monkeys hiding behind " old money ". Money cannot buy sense and class , and if you watch and listen to John the hang-man's son you will concur lol.

LOL, farm murders and the battle for land started when EFF was formed? . What the hell were Hani and the Tambos of this country doing in the bushes of Lusaka then? Malema who was yet to be born was the one who had brainwashed them to go there ?lol. Malema you big bad kaffir , how dare you force the likes of Steve Bantu Biko to say " land or death "....even though he said this in 1972 , about 10 years before you were born, you started this shyt . Julius why did you brainwash those African teenagers that were massacred by the Europeans in Soweto in 1976, didn't you know they were at peace using European pidgin as their first language before you messed everything up ? . Since the 90s farm murders have become rampant ,this is all thanks to you ( even though in the mid 90s you were just a teen boy ).

I'm sorry bass , i agree with you. We should form a black and white alliance and attack that kaffir before he destroys this great and unified country . Let's leave everything else like the inequality, poverty , substance abuse, economic slavery on the farms and continued exploitation of the young in the private sector . Those are not the most important issues of South Africa, Julius the bad nigga is . Who cares about the old evergreen contracts with state owned companies that are blocking the emergence of new participants in the formal economy ? . Who cares about the fact that one man called Johan Rupert from Europe is the biggest land owner in an African country? . That is not important , what is important to keep the rainbow nation peaceful is for you and me to join hands and expose that criminal for living in Sandton and driving a nice car . His kind should be stuck in shacks in Alex not on the other side of the of the Malboro Gautrain station, how dare he crosses over? . Let us unite against this epic injustice .

This girl is on fire.

codemaniacs:
people like you will claim that the Europeans in south Africa calling themselves afrikaans are native to the African continent...

How ironic. I have been arguing with one of them on another thread about how their general genetic makeup makes them non native to Africa.


SMH!

https://www.nairaland.com/5162691/there-more-dutch-people-south

jln115:
- mostly yes!!

- I have 2 monikers jln115 and jl115 between them I've over 6000 posts on nairaland and have been a member of this forum since 2014 that's 5 years....so not exactly young on this site. Hence I pretty much know the active White SAns on this site.

- I said he could not be a White South African and have stated my reasons.. ..... Once he responds to my post we'll be able to say for certain.

Where you here when the site crashed and we lost a lot of threads on this forum? I think not. That Africa military thread was one of the only ones that survived the crash and had a good number of Saffas in there. There were a gazillion more Saffa threads right after the xenophobic events in 2008 after which cept for visa inquiries interest in the country dwindled quite considerably.

I know your people are very reclusive and would find it belittling to come on this forum and debate with "naijerians" but there definitely have been a few.

jln115:
And you are making those same assumption!!!...........It makes absolutely no sense that a White SAn would 1. Even know about Nairaland and 2. now about Nairaland and then Register an Account just to spew racial hatred.

Yes because all Afrikaner people live in South Africa and all of them must conform to the grammatical writing styles that are peculiar to Afrikaners.

jln115:
Literally the only reason I became aware of Nairaland was because I was interested in African Militaries and the "Strongest Military in Africa " Thread popped up in my search.

You are young on this site aren't you. There have been several threads that have drawn White South Africans in general to this site, whether they are Afrikaner well is a little irrelevant. The Afrikaner community is not one monolith.

jln115:
Besides the fact that he uses words like mkhukhu, kaak, children of "mama "...........He has also not responded to my Afrikaans responds to him, which was pretty insulting BTW, which If he was a stubborn Afrikaner he definitely would have responded....... This is how I know his definitely not Afrikaner and as we can both agree his grammar does not mimic that of a typical British/English person.

Which is why I said he could be a White S. African of any European persuasion. There is such a thing, you know!

jln115:
If it's an unwritten rule, why is it that so many don't follow it?? Why are Nigerians all over this thread speaking in all sorts of languages....Hell some have even spoken Chinese on some of the threads i've been on!

It's not Lingua Franca to me or allot of other foreigners on this thread...

Right Right! !!

jln115:
I can bet my bottom Dollar that his not South African......unlike you I look at the grammatical style of his responses why'll you: " He angry, He emotion!! He be South African!!! "

Lastly none of the Nigerians Who've called me the K word have ever been to SA.

You like making a lot of assumptions with minimal information don't you. My advice don't ever gamble. You are likely to loose.

jln115:
However compared to the ANC the DA have actually been more successful at redressing the past than the ANC they have turned Cape Town from the most unequal to the least unequal city in SA, the unemployment rate is by far the lowest in the Western Cape than the rest of SA, believe it or not they have also been much much more successful at effective land redistribution than the ANC and unlike the redistribution model the ANC uses in which the Government owns the land which have been redistributed the DA actually gives the title deed to the land recipient.

https://businesstech.co.za/news/government/316018/south-african-2019-election-the-predictions-vs-the-results/

yet the DA's numbers dwindled from 2014 to 2019 even with all the ANC corruption.

jln115:
IMHO the middle ground with regards to the economy has already been reached..... And there should be a focus on attracting foreign investment to help reignite growth of our economy..... More populist policies will only aggravate our current economic struggle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8ru705jn_I

An excellent interview with DA leader that challenges the DA's progress in the Western cape and economic agenda for the whole country from the mouth of South Africans themselves.

I guess a good majority of SA's including Eusebius did not buy his arguments. Radical economic transformation it is!

jln115:
Except using Pidgin would in fact be against rule 21 of Nairaland where as there is no rule that says I'm not allowd to talk in another language other than English.... Also you have failed to respond as to why your countrymen are allowed to discuss in their mother tongue, and I'm not?

Always looking for the logical fallacy eh.

1.They are unwritten rules. They pertain more so to etiquette. Something a Nigerian person would understand in casual conversation with groups of people that speak multiple languages.

2. Pidgin is a Lingua Franca. Kitchen Dutch is not.

jln115:
Judging by his grammar he's certainly not of British decent. And judging by that same grammar his also not an Afrikaner......as I said he is a Nigerian troll

Secondly a lot more Nigerians know what the K word is than what you might think.... Especially those involved in South African affairs on this thread.... I've been called one several times by your countrymen.

nah, he's definitely S. African, the angry emotion permeates through the comments.

I did not say all Nigerians do not use it. It would be obvious that the ones who live or have lived in SA would be more familiar with it.

letu:
Morpheus i'm not really into this DNA stuff and I like you to help me out on African DNA, I'm from eastern Nigeria my question has to do with the way you're making use of the name Africa as if it's a name of an ethnic tribe, what exactly is the DNA of the different people of African looks like. I know we (Africans) are all different and similar as in the so called Adamic DNA or Ancient DNA found in different ethnic groups in Africa eg L0 ---- L1 ---- L2 ----- L3 which mutates or give birth to other DNA.

Genetics studies is quite indepth and I don not aspouse to be an expert, however I do understand the fundamentals and will try to be as concise with my response so as not to confuse or be overly wordy.

Ydna is imbedded in the y Chromosome and inherited only from Male to male to male and so on.

Mdtna is inherited from female to female to female across generations as well.

Autsomal DNA is a some total or combination of all the DNA or chromosomes that makes up who you are.

L0-L1_L2_L3 are maternal or mtdna that originate and are inherited from woman to woman only on the African continent. The lower the suffix number the older the DNA. The numbers designate a mutation from the original gene. These mutations mark the beginning of your most distant ancestor. L0 would be most common in Khoisan peoples who are said to be one the oldest African populations still around. L3 would be mostly West Africa. This implies that Khoisan women are connected to the most distant African female ancestor than a West African women

These mutations did not originate in people outside of the continent, therefore they are African derived or African centered. If they are represented outside of the continent it means that person's great great great great grand mother or recent ancestor was an African woman without a doubt. This is how African Americans when tested are able to ascertain where their female Lineage begins.

This is the same case with Paternal lineage E3b1ba, E3b1b, A and B are also markers that originate and exist only on the continent. Any location outside of Africa would indicate that the person has an original male ancestor who is of African origin.

When you focus on Nigeria in particular there are several more mutations that occur within the established haplogroup E3b1a and L3 in specific ethnic groups that differentiate their YTdna and Mdtna. In other words an Igbo person may share similar mutations more closely with an Ibibio man than he would with a Hausa-Fulani person or a Kanuri man. This is how African ancestry.com is able to determine the specific loci African Americans are from.

Lastly austomal DNA is a better gauge of the percentage of what you are in TOTAL. This test is useful to African Americans in general because if you were to test only the Ydna for AA males you would find Non European origins, meaning their original daddy was a white man who slept with a black woman who had a son who had a son, who had a son and so on. Austomal would test for the entirety of DNA combinations in that individual and would be able to tell how much African DNA in total contributes to that individual TOTAL DNA. In the case of a mixed race child his African Autsomal DNA would come out to roughty 50% assuming one of his parents is directly from the African continent.

Hope this helped.

jln115:
An unwritten rule you say?? Seem like it's more of a made up rule to me!! Besides I see Nigerians talking thier own language as well as pidgin on this thread every day....and you never see me moaning!!

Pidgin is a lingua franca in Nigeria and many English speaking African countries. Kitchen Dutch is not.

jln115:
If you wanted to know what I said to Kemptonpost you could of just Google translated it.

And the only reason I wrote Afrikaans to him is to prove that he is in fact just a Nigerian troll and not SAn an certainly not a white SAn.

He could be of White British Descent too!

PS the manner in which he uses the K word alludes to his identity. That word doesn't even register on the average Nigerian's vocabulary, even when in heated discussions with S. Africans