₦airaland Forum

bigfrancis21:
The theory that 'Igbos crossed the Niger and displaced our original language, that's why we speak Igboid-based dialects' is as laughable as it comes.

Please tell them o!

wizalpha:
We're in this all together for the next four years...Nobody is getting any visa to anywhere.
#noEscape

You and who are in this, abeg no form OBAMA speech for Nigeria. You be President?

Benlag:
This is not a good news for the community of ipobs

It is not good for the whole of Southern Nigeria but IPOB dey your eye so you can't see clearly

Lovetoglory:
we told atiku social media voters that Buhari is Godsent and a movement in the north, they never believed but they kept on believing in their unpopular candidate. We told them that elections are not won on social media but on the field they refused to believe us. I can categorically state here that 90% of those who supported and voted on social media had no PVCs. Those pastors (fake) who predicted that Buhari will lose, have now lost their value. Anyway, happy next level. Congratulations to Baba Bubu.

The conquest of Uthman Dan Fodio continues. SMH.

I weep for my country

Isahalbash:
wasu kamar su mutu..ba sai na kama suna ba

The conquest of Uthman dan fodio continues. SMH!

NileValley:
A White person in South Africa is an invader from Europe , not an indigenous South African , it seems like you're the one who needs to go back to school , you must have skipped history class. You think repeating things you read on the internet makes you look intelligent?
You're not fooling me , you're funny.

My entire write up just skipped over your infantile brain huh?

You skipped the rest of the examples and jumped on the White South African one which exposes your bias. HAHAHAHA!

Fulanis invaded Northern Nigeria and established Islamic caliphates in what is known as Nigeria today. How did Buhari become an indigene of Daura?

Berbers/Amazigh peoples are back migrants from the Levant into North Africa, how did they become indigenes of North Africa before the Arab conquests.

You are an infantile thinker, at best a juvenile who's brain has not fully developed yet. Let me help you develop your brain, Shikena!

Amujale:
Its nothing short of an abomination to attempt the use of anti-African ideology or Rhetoric in the determination of African history, it just will not work that way in the 21st century.[/qoute]
??

In the 21st century, African academics will and already are determining for themselves the TRUE African history. All the old and ill-judged Eurocentric and Arab assertions are bound to eventually be put out of official (African) use.

spoken like a true Afrocentrist. I have nothing more to say

NileValley:
They are not African their bloodline is mixed with European and Native American stupid boy

Again no rebuttal just infantile responses. Their mixed heritage does not negate their African genetic heritage.

You can cry about it all day long. DNA does not lie.

NileValley:
it's really funny that you think repeating studies that you read on the internet makes you look like you're educated and intelligent , keep learning and copying and pasting studies to make yourself look like a smartass.

The studies speak for themselves, I don't need to sound educated, any fool who knows how to read can decipher the information for himself, unfortunately that is not you.

NileValley:
Look at that "Morphues : 1" , you don't even know how to write your own username.

HAHAHAHAHA. Childish responses, keep attacking my grammar and not my points. Strawman arguement tactics.

Autodidact1:
This is a very dumb reply. So you base everything on something as dynamic as language? Have you heard of language shift, languages going extinct, acculturation? These things are dynamic and doesn't make sense to be fixated on them. They're considerable factors quite all right. But if you're not knowledgeable in these stuffs it's good you stand aside and watch. Do you know anything about Ika language how it was spoken few centuries ago, few decades ago and presently? Are you aware of many factors that contributed in this changes?

And you sound dumb again about DNA. Ika WOULD bla bla bla. And you think all Ikas have the same DNA? Why are you commenting on something you're just so ignorant about

1. About Language. Acculturation and language shifts have little to do with phonetics, lexicon and sentence formation in particular of the IKA LANGUAGE. It is without a doubt that languages that are similar to each other within a given proximity point to high probabilities of a "source" founder population, butressed with DNA evidence, it is safe to assume that the two groups are SIGNIFICANTLY related to one another in comparison to other surrounding groups.



This is very evident in many African examples with many southern African and Bantu groups exhibiting this particular linguistic phenomena.

Case in Point. Ndebele, Zulu, Swati and Xhosa are all distinct languages of their own but without a doubt emanate from an original source Language from Nguni, their founding father. Most of these Nguni languages are also heavily influenced by the click sounds of the Khoi speakers, further pointing to the fact that the Khoi were heavily absorbed genetically into these aformentioned gropus. DNA evidence corroborates this hypothesis.


2. If you are so confident about your NON IGBO lineage why don't you take the test and come post the results here. 23 and me is a great one. It will break down the results of your ethnic affinity in Nigeria. When you confirm you can come back and call me S.T.U.P.I.D I will accept.

You can dance around acculturation, folk tales, My grandfather told us we are from here and there, etc etc etc, However DNA does not lie.!

Stephench:
Yes of course. Do you have an evidence of any fabrications? The last time I checked, igbos are the one all over the internet fabricating and concocting people's history.

The evidence is in the linguistic, proximal and genetic evidence of these groups who deny the obvious "founder populations" that MOST LIKELY originate from the same founder populations that make up all the groups of igbo's today.

A simple DNA test of an IKA man and an IGbo man would confirm this genetic similarities between the two peoples even if one group seeks to identify ethnically as something else.

DNA does not lie nor does it require an affirmation of "IGBO consciousness". It will clearly show that these two groups are of the same stock.


Are you afraid of the truth. GO and take a DNA test. 23 and me is a good one, it will break down what ethnic group you belong to in Africa

Amujale:
Let me make it clear the fact that the early Africans are as human as humans in the world today, to think otherwise is totally missing the point, the misconception of the Real human against the earlier semi-human is based on false and mis-conceptions, however, i digress.

Amujale:
The Nile civilisation' represents 5% of African civilisation.

The mtDNA analysis is tunnel-vision and more importantly, is based on a floored premise. Therefore, what you present here today is not a rebuttal of Diop's conclusion, rather a counter argument. One that most African academics have already tossed into the bin.

What part of genetic evidence did they toss in the bin??


I will stop here because it seems you do not understand the genetic implications of anything I have posted and are babbling about some Anti African conspiracy theory

Amujale:
Most modern day scientist agree with Diop on that point.

That is what I just said, Diop is not the originator of that premise.

Amujale:
That is just a nonsensical statement.

What specifically is nonsensical and why?

Amujale:
The statement is true but insignificant compared to the TRUTH, which is that early humans are closer to proximity to us Africans.

You are running round in circles her, what is true then insignificant then is now compared again to the TRUTH

Amujale:
According to African studies, that statement is completely and utterly false. Untrue.

What do you mean by according to African studies., Does the only information that you deem true come from African studies?

Amujale:
Since much of the body of contents are based on floored assertions, the conclusion is deemed false. Your arguments are based on floored intelligence and anti-African retric.

What is floored intelligence, there are floored points, floored information, floored conclusions but not floored intelligence.

Facts are verifiable and tested, if the conclusions are the same after repetition again and again there are factual so I don't know what you mean here.

As far as the anti African rhetoric, that's neither here nor there. If information emanates from and African, is tested and shown to be true I will accept and likewise anyone on this planet. Truth is truth no matter who it emanates from.

Maybe you are trying to explain what is know as "Confirmation bias" is science where before the experiment is conducted the person performing the test already has an intrinsic bias and taints the data with his own bias.

Amujale:
Kindly stop trying to convey your warped interpretation of African academia to us. Instead provide us with the evidence of your initial claims.

Here are summaries of Cheik Anta diops findings on Ancient Egyptian DNA that tie them Anthropologically, linguistically and genetically.


http://worldhistoryandanthropology..com/2014/02/10-arguments-from-cheik-anta-diop-that.html.



Here is genetic studies today that supercedes some of his assertions

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707631826:
"mtDNA Analysis of Nile River Valley Populations: A Genetic Corridor or a Barrier to Migration?"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707624173:
"A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa"


You are a big boy, read through them but so you don't get confused basically what the articles refer to in relation to Anta diops analysis is that on a genetic level the origins of Egyptians and Africans by extension are far more complex that simply blood group tests and thus the designation of "Egyptians as black people"

continued

Amujale:
I think it’s self explanatory if you read into Diop’s works. He derives from his scientific conclusions the fact that the early humans (Africans) has all the building blocks of the genes present in the world today.

Africans are not a Monolith of phenotypes and genotypes much like every other group of peoples outside the continent and this is what Diop was trying to convey in his writings. That the suggestion that there is not a continuum of gradation of humans up to Ancient Egypt and all through the world as postulated by anthropologist and scientists of his time that separated peoples in terms of races and gave certain superior attributes to some was Ludacris and incorrect science. He has been justified in his works but again not all he wrote was correct. He mis-interpreted the complexity of the contributions of genetics by dismissing its relevance in his study of "social" interactions and

Amujale:
I think it’s self explanatory if you read into Diop’s works. He derives from his scientific conclusions the fact that the early humans (Africans) has all the building blocks of the genes present in the world today.

1.Most scientists are in agreement with the fact that modern humans aka Homo sapiens evolved in Africa and contributed to the genes inherited by their modern counter parts. Diop is neither the originator nor only source of this knowledge or scientific conclusion.

2. These Anatomically Modern humans that evolved in Africa possessed the building blocks that made "Modern AfricanS" and "NON African" peoples alike

3. All African people today do not have the same genetic material but have the most diverse. In other words those early Modern Humans that remained in Africa are closer to proximity to us than to NON Africans.

4. Africans today are not the same people as early or Modern Humans both phenotypically and Genotypical. We also evolved into different looking types of people as our NON African cousins. There are some African who are much closer in proximity in terms of genetics to the early humans that that older mutations and there are some that carry younger versions much like people outside of the continent.

5. The oldest recorded MTDNA_Mitrochondial DNA_ L0 passed on from daughter to daughter is found in Africa and present in the oldest known peoples in Africa, the Khoisan. The divergence continues throughout Africa with L1, L2, L3, M, N etc.

6. West and Central Africans carry the L2 frequency at the highest level which means an ancestor of Mdtna L or L0 diverged and produced the females that inhabit West and Central Africa today producing genetic variation between the two groups which sometimes can correlate to Physical attributes.

7. This phenomena is what happened as Humans migrated out of Africa. L2 to L3 then all the subclades of L to M in the middle east back to Africa againthen to N and so on.

8. These changes correlate with certain physical traits in Humans but is not necessarily the cause of the differences in the differing physical traits.

Conclusion the earliest Humans in Africa gave rise to all of us today Africans and NON Africans. The first humans very likely are more similar in appearance to what you refer to as "Black people" today but that does not mean they looked exactly like we do today. I don't know if you understand what that points to.

Amujale:
And? What is the precise point you are trying to make here. All historians are deemed by there peers to be unconventional, most African academics take it as a compliment.

Name me one African historian that your type considers conventional? Socrates was unconventional during his time, yet he makes better sense in 2019.

Furthermore, Africans don’t need to proof our theories and hypothesis to anyone, because Africans academics in most cases are THE authority on their given course of study, e.g Dr Anta Diop

Before the likes of Anta Diop one of a team of academics that are still considered today the most qualified team ever to have been assembled to look into pre-colonial Africa.

The only other studies been done into pre - colonial Africa was that of some mediocre scholars that had little or no background in archeology, anthropology or any of the earth sciences.

Even though Anta Diop and his team are considered unconventional, that is because they explored concepts and made use of genuine scientific aparatuses other academia refuse to , in time, you will find that they are rightfully considered the leading authorities.

The point is to show that Diop did not follow conventional protocol in publishing his works that were reviewed as is required by the consensus of Most scientist. If you do no use scientific agreed upon methods then your work is outside the sphere of Journal review. It does not mean your works are not sound.

Again Diops work is a welcome addition to the anthropological and archaeological information that is available today, however as I said earlier, many of his conclusions have been debunked today, particular concerning ancient Egypt and the origins of its people.

Diops interpretation was tancient Africans (specifically the Natufians) were an African peoples who originated with customs from the interior of Africa who moved up the Nile and co-mingled with peoples and cultures from the Levant and West Asia. This is true to an extent but the DNA evidence collected from mummies and present in a number of Egyptians ( not Arabs) is in contention to this assertion.

NileValley:
He means they are not indigenous to any land on earth , stupid.

Infant. An indigene is a relative term depending on context and simply means "the oldest occupant of a given land space".

An African American is "indigenous" to America compared to a recent African or South Asian migrant. An African American has African heritage from the indigenous peoples of West and Central Africa.

A native American is Indigenous to the Americas as compared to a European settler or African captive. A native American has Asian Heritage from his indigenous Siberian and East Asian peoples

A South African Afrikaner is indigenous to Land in South Africa compared to a recent Nigerian or Malawian migrant. A South African Afrikaner has heritage from the indigenous peoples of Europe specifically the Dutch peoples


Go back to school and stop embarrassing yourself here.

NileValley:
"I am not sure how you thing that is something special to you as an African person born in Africa"

Learn to write you sound stupid.

Yes more insults to mask your empty responses, very rich coming from a 10 year old .

You must think you are jostling with your mate here.

Morpheus : 1 points

Nile Valley Baby; 0 points.

Keep coming!

Amujale:
In a way, Diop’s findings did not talk only about the genetics of Africans, but the genetic derivatives of the early humans and that has a huge significance.

I don't understand what you mean in the bolded part. Please elaborate.

Amujale:
What year is this new findings suppose to have been published? Who are the authors? What is the subject of debate specifically?

You are going to make me dig through my journals now to find this for you but I will. A note to you, Anta Diop was not a very conventional scholar so in other words he did not publish his works for peer review as he was suspect of the methodologies of those who were supposed to review and critic his works but there are critics on his writings.

NileValley:
I ddn't ask you to attack anything,stop calling non-African people Africans you sound like a fool.

More insults from an infantile who has not made one iorta of sense through all his write ups.

African Americans are invariably African people both in phenotype and genotype. All African Americans cluster the closest to African peoples because the separation is a mere 500 years old, not long enough to change the genotype in A.American DNA.

In aggregate AA's are in most DNA tests expressive of 75% to 99% African in genotype.

The fool is you my friend. Go back to school you've been drinking too much of that Nile river water.

Morphues : 1

Nile Valley Infant: 0 points

labani06:
yes but we have an advantage over them Africans are born legally that is we are all born atleast under marriage

You have not crossed the shores of Ogbomosho cause if not you will bury your head in the sand for making such a statement.

labani06:
what about them must of them where born illegally especially those with multi racial lineage with the black Americans there is a great possibilities their great grandma was raped by her master.

It is not a possibility but a reality and not of their making so I don't understand your reasoning here. Almost everyone in the Americas is a combination of more than one racial group of people so I am not sure how you thing that is something special to you as an African person born in Africa.

Stephench:
But today they have? and you want to foist it on others?

Self actualization does not require fabricating one's "obvious" origins.

labani06:
My fellow Africans don t worry at least you have origin

They have Origins too. Its in their blood coded in their DNA

jantavanta:
There is nothing wrong in the indigenous Australian contribution to the population of Southern America or to the population of Japan.

There is no disconnecting Africa from the founding population of any continent.

It is still Africa populating the entire World, via land and sea, #WhenTheWorldWasBlack.

I am weary of the above language because it smells of undertones of ethnocentric and racial bias, a 16th century invention by euro-centrics to control a narrative of nature and biological diversity.

The "people" that left "Africa" are both ancestors of Modern day Africans and the rest of the populations in the world so it would be more scientifically accurate to state that "it is Homo Sapien or MAN who is populating the entire World via land and sea"

Amujale:
Debunked by whom? And what part of his work are you referring to here?

Dr Anta Diop challenged a lot of the Eurocentric view points on race that characterized the study of Anthropology, race in ancient Egypt and racial categories in Africa as a whole during much of the 19th century.

Though most of his studies were a welcome rebuttal to many a Eurocentric pseudo science that flew around at that time, such as the concept of the "True Negro theory" advanced by Carltoon coon and the likes, Diop died in 1986 and was not privileged to see the advancements and contributions of human genetics into the field of Anthropology. This new data debunks a good number of his ascertions about the relevance of how genetics plays into the origins of "Black African peoples" and so called "black peoples" that populate or populated the rest of the world at one time.

He was very much an anthropologist and historian at heart and discarded the genotypical contributions to the idea of the human identity for the more arbitrary social classification of humans as they interact in physical spaces.

Born2Breed:
I would ave sent you several quotes of notable black Americans saying against Africans before they became enlightened of the black consciousness.

But do your research if you are intelligent enough.

Give me the statistical information. I can run a search on youtube and pull up any clown saying nonsense about Africa. That does not make it a majority of African Americans.

Mobilia:
Morpheus24,
I have been reading through the majority of your posts on this thread...which have been very enlightening and appear factually accurate. I say "appears" cause I like to do personal research (on certain things which I don't know about) to confirm their accuracy.

I see, though, intelligence hasn't escaped you.
Well written...

You must always do your research and ascertain if what someone is saying holds any water. Debate expands ones knowledge base. I share knowledge to teach and learn at the same time.

Amujale:
[flash=250,250]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYk8cm_aREA[/flash]

The Origins Of Humanity: featuring Dr Cheikh Anta Diop (Senegalese historian, anthropologist, physicist who studied the human race’s origin and pre- colonial African culture)

Dr Cheikh Anta Diop's works are a little old and some of it has been debunked and and updated.

Born2Breed:
So sad that most Black's American thinks they are different. Their problem is they don't belong to anywhere...

Please tell us how you know that most black's think like this. Did you take of poll of all Black American to make such a statement.

A buffon is accusing a people of steroptypes and generalization yet he is committing the same sin.

SMH in embarasssment.

Please tell us you are a South African or something, stop embarassing Nigerians here we are know to be highly educated thinkers.

NileValley:
Stupidity wil get you nowhere either , only your retarded ass calls the United States "the Americas" you clown

1.Yes me and every other anthropologist,, archaeologist and paleoanthropologist.

2. No rebuttal with no evidence just more abusive language to digress away from providing any evidence of his assertion.

NileValley:
and no Black Americans are not an extension of Africa at all , they are just Black Americans.


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


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otfMcwb9kCs


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzbWr151NTQ

Ahhh the hebrew Israelites my favorite delusional gibberish ranting maniacs running around the streets spreading nonsensical diatribes about black peoples origins. So what part of their gibberish do you want me to attack first?

Amujale:
most Africans have retained their genetics almost entirely intact throughout the ages as the source for what is now known as the multi-cultural world of today

1. Africa is the reservoir of Human genetics -What this means is that People who lived have the most genetic diversity between two people than amongst the larger group. The further to move from the continent the less the genetic diversity which is how scientist are able to reverse engineer how old a gene is. So yes people who live in Africa carrying the oldest genetic elements

2. African genes continued to mutate long after the first adventurers left the continent to populate the rest of the world.

3. Because someone looks like an African does not mean they still have the same genes as Contemporary Africans. Case in point the Andaman islanders and the Papua new guineans look very similar to Africans yet they are the most genetically distant to Africans. They retain the phenotypical traits of Africans which is an arbitrary attribute of humans, however they diverged so much so genetically that they very distant from contemporary Africans today. If you want to understand this more I urge you to read through several articles in the Journal of Human genetics concerning this people I have mentioned.

Amujale:
God endowed the African woman with the capacity to give birth to all ethnic groups available to human kind.

I am not sure what you mean here. The contemporary African carries the oldest human mutations that exist today therefore they are usually dominant in physical expression. An African and a European child would express phenotypically more similar to the African because of the dominance of the older mutation, however nature strives for perfection in its design so even though the child expresses more as the African physically, they are a perfect 50% in genetic material from both parents so they have a perfect 50% european gene distribution as they do African.

Europeans mutations are said to be some of the most recent therefore they may have the most recessive of genetical material and will be dominated physically if they mate with people with older mutations. This is not the case 100% of the time though[/quote]

NileValley:
First of all i said Africans have nothing to do with the American continent , not Black Americans even though they are not indigenous and don't own any land. And nobody calls the United States "The Americas" you're stupid.

Laughing in Yoruba

Insults will get you no where, just state facts.

The United states is included in the definition and geographical space known as "The Americas".

If you dispute please provide evidence that speaks otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas

NileValley:
If you are talking America the continent then you're spewing nonsense because how can they have linguistic influence when English is a European language and most countries on the American continent don't speak English?

Laughing in Igbo.


African linguistic influences in the Americas specifically in "North America" English is attested to in the Gullah peoples of South Carolina.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/African-American-English

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullah


There is also evidence of African linguistic influence in "South America" as well aka Brazilian Portugese spoken by many Afro-Brazilian groups in the country.

http://www.jpanafrican.org/docs/vol5no5/5.5Afro-Brazilian.pdf

NileValley:
And when it comes to culture Latinos have their own cultures and it's the same in the Carribean.
The genetic influence you talk about comes from Africans , not Black Americans.
Lastly , how are they propping up the African identity when they hate Africans?

I don't know what you are yapping on about here but if you have a personal issue with Black Americans I am not really concerned about how much they hate Africans or not. What I am concerned about is factual information that carries a topic forward.

When Black Americans speak of their identity or influence it is inescapably intertwined and an extension of African identity, they or you for that matter cannot escape this reality no matter how much they cry about it.