₦airaland Forum

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.

Amujale:
The true chronology of human history has it that everyone starts in Africa and later migrate to all the four corners of the globe.

Africans are the first people to arrive in the Americas populate and build communities.

Africans are the first people to arrive in Asia populate and build communities.

Africans are the first people to arrive in Australasia populate and build communities.

Africans are the first people to arrive in Europe populate and build communities.

Africans are the first ever Eskimos

Conclusion, every single ethnic group on our planet are a product of the first generation of humans; the first generation of humans are Africans.

Any other theory or hypothesis in living memory does not stand up to these simple truths.

Let's be clear on your above statement. You are correct in your assertion however what must be made clear is that these migrations started 150,000 to 200,000 years ago so the "Africans" you are referring to may have not looked liked or shared the same genetic lineage as contemporary Africans today. so Contemporary Africans you see today and People outside of the continent share the same lineage or descent but one did not emanate from the other.

In other words the Africans that remained in Africa also experienced a transformative morphological change both genetically and phenotypically. What I am trying to say is that the Africans that left the continent would resemble the Africans that still live in Africa today but they are not us now both phenotypically and genetically speaking. As Africans we have evolved too over that length of time to become what we are today.

NileValley:
This skin tone probably comes from their Aboriginal Australian ancestors , we Africans know that we have nothing to do with the American continent. Black Americans are the biggest hypocrites they complain about cultural appropriation yet they try to steal the Native American identity , not just the culture , the entire identity. Disgusting slaves.


A DNA Search for the First Americans Links Amazon Groups to Indigenous Australians:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-search-first-americans-links-amazon-indigenous-australians-180955976/

When you say "Black Americans" have nothing to do with the American continent I am not sure your statement is all that correct. Africans who were brought to the Americas at the same time Europeans settled in the Americas heavily influenced the racial makeup of today's "Americans" as a continent, therefore they have had a strong influence on the cultural, linguistic and genetic identity of the people that inhabit the Americas today.

The remaining Indigenous or Native Americans exist in smaller pockets today and their gene pool has been diluted and spread across the peoples they encountered i.e Europeans and Africans to create the new so called racial identity of today's "Latinos" or "Hispanics". The African inclusion is however downplayed a lot in this new racial makeup due to the origins of the Africans as slaves and thus the anger within the Black American groups so in a way these AA are justified in their anger and their reason for propping up the African identity within the Americas.

frosbel2:
This thread is going to stir a little controversy and perhaps incur the ire of some of my atheist ‘friends’; however, I bear no ill will to any one, this is just an expression of the frustration of many free thinkers like myself, who are tired of the lack of originality inherent in the black African.
Our foundation is being eroded and yet we are asleep and sleep walking into an abyss of cultural genocide. We esteem the work and theology of the white man better than our own way of life. We are unaware that these concepts we keep accepting and living out, were designed with sinister intent, to eradicate the black man's foundation and prevent him from advancing spiritually, economically and politically.

Our resident atheists (I love them) have latched onto the flying spaghetti monster idea, which is a WHITE MAN's concept, and absorbed all the theology behind it to offer an alternative to abusive religion in Africa. The reason is understandable, but the question is, why do we have to borrow this concept and introduce it into our culture? It is certainly not designed for our welfare or betterment and in many cases promotes a racist superiority ideology.

Then we have black Muslims who are more fanatical than the Arab founders of Islam and have embraced this ancient ideology to the retrogression of their economic, social, spiritual and cultural wellbeing. They live a 6th century Arab man's life and call it religion , when it is more of a supremacist political ideology than a religion. They accept the Koran with the same faith that Christians have for their bible and will hate, denounce or even kill their own families who show signs of disagreement with its message. What is this? Another case of the FOLLOW FOLLOW BLACK MAN. The Arabs are the most racist people to the blacks, we all know it, but hey, who cares - we have no originality , so we will just tag along.

Then we come to the super duper of the LOT. WHITE JESUS. This white Jesus has been responsible for the death of millions and rampant shedding of blood over a Millennia in the name of their Jewish Messiah, the same messiah that the Jews reject. Nigerians are shameless when it comes to WHITE JESUS, the same SHI.T that was introduced at a time when blacks were enslaved, colonized , oppressed and humiliated , - complete with bible verses to back up their actions is the same SHI.T that has darkened our continent and promoted laziness, procrastination, superstition and division.

How about the BLACK MAN come up with something ORIGINAL for his race, something that promotes the belief in a God or concept that promotes the peaceful co-existence of the African black man and facilitates his/her economic, political and social prosperity.
What about something ORIGINAL than represents the BLACK RACE, and that wipes away the stigma of our shame and humiliation. When will we ever become ORIGINAL and abandon all these useless foreign concepts and start to embrace our own peculiarities and form a national identity that future generations will be proud of ?

Something like AFRICANISM as FELA suggested ??

The Yoruba pantheons are original what are you talking about?

Noneroone:
Firstly, the truth is most people don’t know what love truly means. What most people call love is just romantic attraction. They have an amorous depiction of love which does not last. I asked a guy who swore that he ‘loves’ his fiancée whether he would still marry her if her both legs were amputated after an accident, he frankly said no. I told him “you don’t love her, what you share is attraction”. Many marriages have collapsed because they began on emotional footing. The truth is that love is not something you fall into. Anything you fall into such as temptation Sin and “love” is not of God. Sampson fell in love with Delilah, Solomon loved foreign women but we all know the end. Love is not a feeling that overwhelms, It a choice, a decision, a commitment and, an act of will. You chose and learn to love just like hate. That is why it is always given by God as a command eg love you neighbor, husband love your wife.
Falling in love is not biblical, and it’s not a valid reason for marriage. In other words, love happens inside marriage not before it. Marriage is quite bigger than love and it lasts till death. This is why it so important that you set aside emotion and consider natural pillars and avoid issues that can stress a union. Love comes in to bind and seal these natural and tangible elements and help the union hold together. If love is all that matters, it means the marriage ends when couple ’fall out’ of love.
When on a very important journey, would you rather take a beautiful venza headed to somewhere else than taking a modest bus heading to your destination?. Of course taking the bus will make your journey successful but the venza that caught your fancy will keep you stranded in a strange destination. The venza decision is emotional while that of bus is hinged on reason.
One of, if not the most important criteria for a successful marriage is culture and value compatibility. It is God who created every tribe and tongue( Acts 17:26) (Deut 32: 8 ) this wasn’t an act of tribalism. values and ideas about marriage vary across cultures, yet every Tribe is right in their own culture and values .The friction only comes when one tries to mix their different values and bloodline through marriage. Hence GOD instructed his people to marry from among themselves (Deut 7:1-3) (Num 36:6) (Num 12:1) (Gen 28:1)(Ezra 9:12). Moreover, every girl is trained in a specific cultural and religious environment and can only find her niche within her own tribe. Marriage is not just about the two persons involved. When you marry a man, the man’s people become your people, his language, god, culture become yours. There is no such thing as “respect each others’ culture” in marriage, otherwise you are no longer really married. There is more to marital bliss than your husband’s love. This includes enjoying through marriage those social privileges your culture gives to your new status as married women, which you were born to appreciate and cherish, and which has shaped your personality. This will not make much sense to you if you marry out your ethnic group and as such, affect your happiness in the long run. With these, those who like to think otherwise can see that Marriage is almost absolutely cultural.
Again, do you know there is a connection between marriage and ethnic loyalty? Men who marry from outside their ethnic group shy away from ethnic nationalism and things that promote the uniqueness of their ethnic groups. They brand such things “tribalism” but we know their actions are not normal…this is why God spoke against it in Joshua (23:12-13)
Again, Wives are called helpers. They help their husband achieve their purpose. Can an Igbo woman (or vice versa) ‘help’ make her Yoruba children functional members of the Yoruba society when she knows nothing about their culture? No. compatibility plays an all-important role in the success of a marriage and sharing same value is the first step towards that. In inter tribal marriage, conflict of culture and value happen right there within a family, which even defeats the essence of the family
To be clear, there are issues generally common to marriage but these ones highlighted are peculiar to inter-tribal marriages, and when added to the general ones make inter-ethnic marriage very much likely to fail. This explains why they fail more. The silent majority are struggling to hold together.
What is more is the fate of the children. They suffer from identity crisis. Theirs is a spirit yearning for a full sense of belonging from either of the two different cultures and identity which meet in their own family. Conflicting social identity is not healthy to an individual’s sense of self realization. Most offspring of mixed marriages naturally don’t involve deeply in their fathers society and culture. This is why they end up being open to intertribal marriage, again continuing the cycle of ‘normlessness’.
Don’t be deceived. Not everything popular is right. Peoples future are not built on fables fantasies and fiction. Most important decisions of life are not taken for political correctness. If you start what you can’t finish, what you started will finish you. Those married should try and make it work while those about to should look before they leap.

OAM4J Lalasticlala mynd44 Pls wider publicity is needed

The s.t.u.pidest religious and bigoted gibberish I have ever read. The person that wrote tis cannot be over 30 because it reeks of infantile thought and un-rational thought.

Love is an emotion therefore it is an emotional response to a physical, psychological and spiritutal connection one develops with another human being driven by natural hormones that enhances the experience.

Marriage is different from love, it is an institutional body created to facilitate and propagate life in a meaningful and constructive manner that helps further a societies norms.

Tribes,ethnic groups, religious beliefs, creeds, and the likes are social constructs that also help foster societies which is why they are interlinked in the choice of your marriage partner.

IF they put a black man, a white woman, a jewish man an arab muslim, a catholic Asian etc on a deserted island and left them to their own demise, they would create a brand new race, a brand new culture with brand new systems and a brand new religion that would foster their survival and existence and would " fall in love" with each other as a function of proximity and attraction.

The poster of this thread is a child and best and a blind religious I.diot at worst

Hati13:
Are you Yoruba American?

Amharas don't have European DNA. It's just European propaganda. Amharas are mix of Cushite/Semite/Omote/Nilot, but large percentage of their DNA is Cushite, so they are Cushite.

I understand you, but the usage of religion/God isn't appropriate.

Do you consider yourself Hebrew than African? No or yes only!

African identity exist, just like European, Asian and South American identity exist. Why you don't want to be identified as African?

To be more precise, Amhara have West Asian DNA which is generally Semetic but Europeans are closely related to People from the region of West Asia thus the link.

Amhara do have more Neanderthal DNA than most sub Saharan Africa because of this admixture but at a very low frequency.

There is nothing such as a true Negro. There have been different types of Africans but one particular phenotype were the most successful spreading within the continent and thus are the largest representation of the African phenotype today.

Subliminal message:

Tonto dey take style tell una say any man wey marry am is very likely not going to stay her love forever. She don curse herself.

Beware if you get sense.