morpheus24:


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.

Kindly stop trying to convey your warped interpretation of African academia to us.

morpheus24:

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"

I was reading through with great expectations but just like all other anti-African writings that claims to be scientific yet is based loosely on a tunnel-vision, it tethered out onto a tangent. That is to say, the initial premise is false.

Firstly, 'The Nile civilisation' represents 5% of African civilisation.

Since, if the premise of theory is false, then, the conclusion is deemed equally to be false.

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.

Secondly, Diop like most African academics already recognise that the civilisation went up the Nile not down and chose correctly to start in the mainland; whilst your guys stay in Egypt and claim they are studying African history. And, here again the premise for their analysis is found also to be false. Civilisation in African move up the Nile, fact.

morpheus24:

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

Amujale:
That is just a nonsensical statement.

morpheus24:



What specifically is nonsensical and why?

The author goes out of his/her way in a hopeless attempt to try an differentiate early Africans from their modern peers.

Why not "These people that evolved in Africa possessed the building blocks that is in the people of today" ?

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.

morpheus24:

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.

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

morpheus24:

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

African studies is the study of African history or culture by African academics and or scholars.

morpheus24:

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.

morpheus24:

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"

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.

morpheus24:

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.

Yes, some Eurocentrics and Arab academics and scholars are known to have these type of practises in their repertoire.

Most African academics nowadays rely on all their senses and scientific prowess instead of some out-dated well concocted anti-African theorems. E.g if you read anywhere what the height of the Atum's obelisk are suppose to be, you are taught not to use that in any of your calculations; go and measure for yourselves. These are the ways of the African academics of today, thorough, precise, a perfectionist; that's how they are able to come up with their conclusions.

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

morpheus24:



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

They are not African their bloodline is mixed with European and Native American stupid boy , 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.

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

Lets recap:

morpheus24:


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

Amujale:


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

morpheus24:

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.

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.

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

morpheus24:


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



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.

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.



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.

morpheus24:


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:


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

morpheus24:


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.

Most modern day scientist agree with Diop on that point.

morpheus24:

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

That is just a nonsensical statement.

morpheus24:


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.

In my opinion that is one of greatest allegorical statements ever to make it to the publishers. The statement is true but insignificant compared to the TRUTH, which is that early humans are closer to proximity to us Africans.

morpheus24:

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.

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

morpheus24:

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 again then to N and so on.

Again, according to African studies, that statement is completely and utterly false. Untrue.

morpheus24:

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:

Another one of greatest allegorical statements ever to make it to the publishers. Try reading that back to yourself a few times and maybe you will understand my point.

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 rhetoric.

morpheus24:



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

The analyses below is based on a flawed premise.

morpheus24:


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"

Furthermore, like i have specified earlier, The Nile civilisation' represents 5% of African civilisation. Therefore the significance of their analysis cannot represent the entire continent.

morpheus24:
What part of genetic evidence did they toss in the bin??

The mtDNA analysis is tunnel-vision and more importantly, is based on a flawed premise.

morpheus24:


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

The above statement is false because you have failed to provide such evidence to back your claims, what you present here today is not a rebuttal of Diop's conclusions, rather a mere argument that is privy to the North of Africa.

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.

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.

...

jantavanta:


The concept of race is just a few hundreds of years old. It was created to justify the economic disenfranchisation of people who are not in a position of relative military strength.

The infamous one-drop rule that defines any American having a Black ancestor as Black, no matter how White they look is an example.

Many Black Native American Nations were classified as Negroes in order to deny them of Indigenous Peoples' privileges.

The link between Africa and the Americas has never been broken. The Ancient Egyptians visited there. Kanka Musa of Mali's brother travelled there.

Indeed i agree with much of what you say here, and would go further to say, the term 'race' is a social scientific contruct that has no meaning outside of its maiden use (social science).

The term 'race' is an allegory that has double the effect of similar terminologies of its type.

Some socio-scientific constructs come with special abilities, as is with the term 'race'.

For instance, let's assume these three distinct sociological complexes:

Superior complex
Well- Balanced
Inferior complex

Whoever calls or thinks someone a racist, activates the terms special ability:

1. Making the initial complainant knowingly or unknowingly experience inferiority complex.

2. Making the person they complained about knowingly or unknowingly experience superiority complex.

These are unmitigated facts.

Those that choose not to use terms like 'race' are not particularly exposed to the same socio-scientific conditions.


Stop making use of derogatory terminology like 'race', instead state exactly what has occured.

For instance, If i waived down a cab, and the driver chose to pick a different passenger (one that arrived later) and if it seems like the cab driver decisions has been clouded by discrimination, that is what i will think or say.

I would say to myself ( hyperthetical, have never experience such personally) that cab driver had his mind clouded with discrimination because he had clearly seen me flag his cab but instead chose to pick the next guy.

I would never say, the driver was a racist, because not only does it not have any legal weight, technically theres only one race on planet Earth; human race.

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.

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

morpheus24:

spoken like a true Afrocentrist

I am really an Africanist, an advocate for a forever successfull Africa, yet i agree with you nevertheless on your Afrocentrist qualification.

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.
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?
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?

[] How can you make such ignorant inflammatory statements sounding like a hypocrite! Africans were the first in America and if you took the time to research and educate yourself, maybe youwould eat these hateful words. The Gullah and Geechie people of South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia have largely preserved their African roots during and after slavery.
Who did they put in slave ships Nile Valley? Who did Africans and Arabs sell to the into slavery to the Europeans? Were they not Africans? You claim to know so much African history however your idiotic statements don't support it. Just spewing ignorance here. There are many mixed ethnic Africans due to colonization by the Europeans, same as America but they retain their identity wherever they travel or live. Native Americans had phenotypes similar to African phenotypes. Pyramids and ancient artifacts like those in Africa have been found in America including Egyptian pyramids and hieroglyphs in the Grand Canyon. It seems to me you may be carrying a huge chiip on your shoulder and therefore spread lies and confusion debunking the truth. So transparent you are.

African Americans are the most successful Africans in the world today, lets support them to greater heights.

There is a massive misunderstanding in a vacuum, Africans dont have the time to argue amongst each other about trivial stuff, lets keep up with the here and now.

Lets appreciate the global struggle as one picture; resolve differences, improve on common understanding and improve our lives for our betterment and that of the coming generations.

Without a shadow of doubt, there are distinct and undeniable found connection between the indigenous Americans with much of mainland African culture.

There are various theories to explain that, one of the leading theories is an African viewpoint; indigenous Americans are said to have descend from the Olmecs.

According to Jose Melar, the Olmecs are supposed to have migrated from Africa (is comprehensively addressed in the “Olmec alternative origin...” documents).

Modern day African historians identify Olmecs with the Mandé people.

Amujale:
Without a shadow of doubt, there are distinct and undeniable found connection between the indigenous Americans with much of mainland African culture.

There are various theories to explain that, one of the leading theories is an African viewpoint; indigenous Americans are said to have descend from the Olmecs.

According to Jose Melar, the Olmecs are supposed to have migrated from Africa (is comprehensively addressed in the “Olmec alternative origin...” documents).

Modern day African historians identify Olmecs with the Mandé people.

DNA evidence does not corroborate this theory. If they were related to present day Mande, you would find genetic material that was still existent in the indigenous Americans today that would tie the two peoples together. Unless you believe the Mande sailed to the new world more than 5000 years ago?


The only proof presented in regards to this theory has been the statues that resemble Phenotypical representations of Africans. if that is the best then you have to convince me that these particular guys below are genetically related to a "cotemporary African" today.

morpheus24:


DNA evidence does not corroborate this theory. If they were related to present day Mande, you would find genetic material that was still existent in the indigenous Americans today that would tie the two peoples together. Unless you believe the Mande sailed to the new world more than 5000 years ago?


The only proof presented in regards to this theory has been the statues that resemble Phenotypical representations of Africans. if that is the best then you have to convince me that these particular guys below are genetically related to a "cotemporary African" today.

Here you go again making false claims.

Can you kindly provide me with your evidence to refute Jose Melar's theory.

Have you even read Jose Melars theory on Indigenous Americans?

Have you read the Olmec theory documents? or

"A history of the African-Olmecs:" by Paul Barton or

"They came before Columbus" by Ivan Sertima

Obviously you havent and are just making empty assumptions.

Have you heard of the "Wahetaw of Louisiana" ,

the Darienite Indians of Panama,

the Choco Regional Indians of Colombia,

the Chuarras of Brazil,

the black(sic) Califonians of California

or the Jamassee Indians whom in antiquity occupies modern day Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and North Florida.

There are also the Guanin who are also said to be indigenous to the Caribbean.

Barton discusses black(sic) civilisations of the Americas from pre-historic to the present day times. The Washetaw of Louisiana are said to be master shipbuilders, in addition to sailing to and fro the coast of Africa, they are said to voyage the Atlantic and Caribbean Sea as well as the Pacific.

Without a shadow of doubt, there are distinct and undeniable found connection between the indigenous Americans with much of mainland African culture.

There are various theories to explain that, one of the leading theories is an African viewpoint; indigenous Americans are said to have descend from the Olmecs.

According to Jose Melar, the Olmecs are supposed to have migrated from Africa (is comprehensively addressed in the “Olmec alternative origin...” documents).

Modern day African historians identify Olmecs with the Mandé people.

Amujale:
Without a shadow of doubt, there are distinct and undeniable found connection between the indigenous Americans with much of mainland African culture.

There are various theories to explain that, one of the leading theories is an African viewpoint; indigenous Americans are said to have descend from the Olmecs.

According to Jose Melar, the Olmecs are supposed to have migrated from Africa (is comprehensively addressed in the “Olmec alternative origin...” documents).

Modern day African historians identify Olmecs with the Mandé people.

You have posted this gibberish again from an outdated scholar who is popular in Afrocentric circles. Where is the genetic evidence to corroborate this theory. This is 2019 you know. The oldest human fossil found in the Americas date 11000 years clusters with Native American ancestry from Asia and Siberia.

There is no genetic evidence that relates Mande to Olmecs. You can dance around sertima's theories all you want, you will not find any information that proves it.

Prehistoric peoples in the Americas would most likely tie genetically to Polynesian or Melanisian peoples if they do not tie to Native Americans from Siberia.
Stop passing on Afro centrism as real science. You sound like those Hebrew Israelite crazies who keep claiming Hebrew ancestry yet once we bring up genetics and ask they to prove it, they begin to dance around rubbish historical theories.

if you want me to point you to the genetic study on 11,000 year old fossil DNA findings simply ask or search for it yourself. Google is your friend.

morpheus24:


You have posted this gibberish again from an outdated scholar who is popular in Afrocentric circles. Where is the genetic evidence to corroborate this theory. This is 2019 you know. The oldest human fossil found in the Americas date 11000 years clusters with Native American ancestry from Asia and Siberia.

There lies no truth or relevance in the above post except more waffling.

Assuming you take the time to check my previous post, you will find it makes reference of African academics and their material with relevance to these discussions.

Amujale:
Have you heard of the "Wahetaw of Louisiana" ,

the Darienite Indians of Panama,

the Choco Regional Indians of Colombia,

the Chuarras of Brazil,

the black(sic) Califonians of California

or the Jamassee Indians whom in antiquity occupies modern day Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and North Florida.

There are also the Guanin who are also said to be indigenous to the Caribbean.

Barton discusses black(sic) civilisations of the Americas from pre-historic to the present day times. The Washetaw of Louisiana are said to be master shipbuilders, in addition to sailing to and fro the coast of Africa, they are said to voyage the Atlantic and Caribbean Sea as well as the Pacific.

https://www.amazon.com/History-African-Olmecs-Civilizations-America-Prehistoric/dp/0759644691

Yes and your correct about it being 2019, the year when all foreign and anti-African rhetoric around history are to be thrown into the intellectual bin in favour of the findings from African and Pan - African research and institutes of academia.

Africans will continue to educate ourselves more on African academics and scholars than ever before; these guys make use of cutting edge technological and scientific techniques.

Without a shadow of doubt, there are distinct and undeniable found connection between the indigenous Americans with much of mainland African culture. Anyone with common sense on Indigenous Americans culture cannot disagree with these truths. But you can sit on your armchair and claim to know better than .

morpheus24:

There is no genetic evidence that relates Mande to Olmecs. You can dance around sertima's theories all you want, you will not find any information that proves it.

Again if you take the time to check material from previous post you will find that you are mistaken and cease making these false claims.

Amujale:
An indigenous American culture enthusiast and have great interest in its research; about five years research makes me come up with these findings.

Without a shadow of doubt, there are distinct and undeniable found connection between the indigenous Americans with much of mainland African culture.

There are various theories to explain this, one of the leading theories is an African viewpoint, indigenous Americans are said to have come from the line of the Olmecs.

According to Jose Melar, the Olmecs are supposed to have migrated from Africa (is comprehensively addressed in the “Olmec alternative origin...” documents).

Again, modern day African scholars identify Olmecs with the Mandé people.

morpheus24:

Prehistoric peoples in the Americas would most likely tie genetically to Polynesian or Melanisian peoples if they do not tie to Native Americans from Siberia.

Says who?

morpheus24:

Stop passing on Afro centrism as real science. You sound like those Hebrew Israelite crazies who keep claiming Hebrew ancestry yet once we bring up genetics and ask they to prove it, they begin to dance around rubbish historical theories.

if you want me to point you to the genetic study on 11,000 year old fossil DNA findings simply ask or search for it yourself. Google is your friend.

Most Africans already know the truth, What Africans call African your type ill-judgingly call Afrocentric. Its exactly because of your type that God creates people like me.

There are various theories to explain that, one of the leading theories is an African viewpoint; indigenous Americans are said to have descend from the Olmecs.

According to Jose Melar, the Olmecs are supposed to have migrated from Africa (is comprehensively addressed in the “Olmec alternative origin...” documents).

Modern day African historians identify Olmecs with the Mandé people.

What people fail to realize is, being of a darker skin tone doesn't mean you are African, jeeeez

fieryy:
What people fail to realize is, being of a darker skin tone doesn't mean you are African, jeeeez

Nowadays, you are probably correct in today's world, however, in olden days, almost all black(sic) people are indeed African, the exceptions are a very few; those 1% that some how miraculously are able to have maintain their colour outside of the continent during major geological phenomena; its a good assumption that every nation on our planet have these 1%.

1%: Its a strong consideration of African studies that one percent of the phenom that took part in the " Out of Africa" experience are said to have maintain their African features. In addition, Africans had various other manoeuvres in antiquity, the famous ones are known to us as scientific or knowledge-based expeditions.

fieryy:
What people fail to realize is, being of a darker skin tone doesn't mean you are African, jeeeez

What happened to your other handle?

Amujale:


Nowadays, you are probably correct in today's world, however, in olden days, almost all black(sic) people are indeed African, the exceptions are a very few; those 1% that some how miraculously are able to have maintain their colour outside of the continent during major geological phenomena; its a good assumption that every nation on our planet have these 1%.

1%: Its a strong consideration of African studies that one percent of the phenom that took part in the " Out of Africa" experience are said to have maintain their African features. In addition, Africans had various other manoeuvres in antiquity, the famous ones are known to us as scientific or knowledge-based expeditions.

I'm sorry for the late reply. Completely forgot about it.
If you're going by the "Out of Africa" theory, then you're going way too far because that'll mean we're all Africans. The first people who settled in Europe weren't white, but darkskinned. In fact AFRICANS because according to the "Out of Africa" theory, life started in Africa. However that was hundred of thousands years ago.

The white skin mutation ONLY took place in Eurasia, so of course the rest of the world maintained their dark skin.

The Aborigines of North America weren't white, the Aborigines of Australia weren't white either. But the fact that they were DARKSKINNED doesn't make them Africans either, we've been separated for very long to say that, just like we've been separated from Europeans for way too long.

The only difference is the mutation that affected the skin color and eyes, to sum it up - melanin

jnrbayano:


What happened to your other handle?

Created another one because I got banned. Now I have 2

fieryy:

...But the fact that they were DARKSKINNED doesn't make them Africans either, we've been separated for very long to say that, just like we've been separated from Europeans for way too long.

Eventhough i agree with much of your post, the above that does not read too well.

The fact that they are darkskinned infact does indeed make them African due to the fact that they hailed from Africa, which in itself also makes them African.

The basic truth is that in those days, everyone is African and therefore everyone at the time was darkskinned or have the adequate amount of melanin to assist humanity.

In todays world, maybe possessing darker skin doesnt automatically make you African, however in those days, before the 'Out of Africa' experience, everyone was African and as a result all humans alive at the time possess all the African features.

Please stop all attempts to try an differentiate ancient Africans from their modern peers. It didnt make sense to differentiate then, and it certainly does not make sense to differentiate ancient peoples from their post-modern peers of today.

Africans are the only people that have the RIGHT and the correct qualifications to determine who IS or is NOT African.

And most Africans agree with me on the fact that African ancestors are very very African.

Hence, everyone on planet earth at the time possess African features, therefore, everyone in those days was African.

The people that took part in the 'Out of Africa' experience, are African for thousands upon thousands of years before taking control of other regions on planet earth.

I.e The first people to occupy the Europe lived as part of a larger African family thousands upon thousands years prior to their migration.

Therefore, the first wave of people to arrive in the Europe in anyone's mind are indeed African.

Appreciate the great beacon of our world that is called Africa, stop trying to stifle her.

Lets employ common sense.

Amujale:


That does not read too well.

The fact that they are darkskinned infact does indeed make them African, the fact that they hailed from Africa also makes them African also.

According to the "Out of Africa" theory (because there ARE several theories), every person's ANCESTORS hailed from Africa.

But what you are doing is confusing SKIN COLOR with nationality/the continent you are from.

The first humans were all dark skinned and Africans. The first Africans who settled in Europe had been dark skinned as well. The next generation of those settlers were considered EUROPEANS.

Why? Because they had never been to Africa before! Same with Asians etc

Having DARK SKIN does NOT make you African, back then and now!


The first Americans began their journey in northeast Asia and southern Siberia to America between 25,000 and 20,000 years ago.

They had first resided in Asia before they moved to North America and probably all had DARK SKIN. Were they Africans? No, because they probably had never even stepped a foot in Africa! We're they Asians? Yes, because that's why they had resided in Asia beforehand!
Were the first generation born in America still Asians? NO!

These are all stuffs that happened thousands of years ago

So this

Amujale:
the basic truth is that in those days, everyone is African

Is wrong


And since white skin evolved ca. 8000 years ago because Europeans lacked the versions of the genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—which led to depigmentation

This

Amujale:

and therefore everyone at the time was darkskinned.

is also wrong.

fieryy:


According to the "Out of Africa" theory (because there ARE several theories), every person's ANCESTORS hailed from Africa.

But what you are doing is confusing SKIN COLOR with nationality/the continent you are from.

The first humans were all dark skinned and Africans. The first Africans who settled in Europe had been dark skinned as well. The next generation of those settlers were considered EUROPEANS.

Why? Because they had never been to Africa before! Same with Asians etc

Having DARK SKIN does NOT make you African, back then and now!


The first Americans began their journey in northeast Asia and southern Siberia. to America, between 25,000 and 20,000 years ago.

They had first resided in Asia before they moved to North America and probably all had DARK SKIN. Were they Africans? No, because they probably had never even stepped a foot in Africa! We're they Asians? Yes, because that's why they had resided in Asia beforehand!
Were the first generation born in America still Asians? NO!

These are all stuffs that happened thousands of years ago

So this



Is wrong


And since white skin evolved ca. 8000 years ago because Europeans lacked the versions of the genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—which led to depigmentation

This




is also wrong.

I am sorry but its in my opinion that you possess an incorrect understanding of African history.

Just realized you added more to your post.

There is NOTHING like an African feature. All we have in common is our DARK SKIN!

The fact that the Bantu people make up the majority of Africans, due to their immigration down south, doesn't mean they are the only face of Africa.

The Nilotic people look different from the Bantus, the Pygmies have their own unique features as well. Same with the Khoisan. These are just few of the African "subgroups". Each with unique features!

@ Amujale or whatever your name is

Africa is the beacon of the world and is responsible for the success of one of the greatest conceivable feats known to humanity, humanity itself.

Our ancestors didnt choose to jump of a cliff and potentially putting an end to humanity as is conceived today.

African ancestors are a great inspiration to all of humanity.

fieryy:
Just realized you added more to your post.

There is NOTHING like an African feature. All we have in common is our DARK SKIN!

The fact that the Bantu people make up the majority of Africans, due to their immigration down south, doesn't mean they are the only face of Africa.

The Nilotic people look different from the Bantus, the Pygmies have their own unique features as well. Same with the Khoisan. These are just few of the African "subgroups". Each with unique features!

@ Amujale or whatever your name is

Btw i dont understand Africans having subgroups. Most of what you write here are Eurocentric and Asiatic giberish.

Maybe you refer to Africans with our diversity.

Well the point is that ,everyone in the world have good reason to appreciate Africans diversity.

The reason everyone appreciates the diversity of Africans is due to the fact that modern day humans enjoy their current genetic make-up as a result of Africans and their ancestry.

Africans invented, or are gifted with', THE generic building blocks responsible for, and traceable to , what is seen in post-modern day humans.

Amujale:


Btw i dont understand Africans having subgroups. Most of what you write here are Eurocentric and Asiatic giberish.

Maybe you refer to Africans with our diversity.

Well the point is that ,everyone in the world have good reason to appreciate Africans diversity.

The reason everyone appreciates the diversity of Africans is due to the fact that modern day humans enjoy their current genetic make-up as a result of Africans and their ancestry.

Africans invented, or are gifted with', THE generic building blocks responsible for, and traceable to , what is seen in post-modern day humans.

Africans should be appreciated for what they truly are! Yes, you are right. But I do not have to lie to myself and claim the first people in America were Africans for me to be PROUD of being African and for me to appreciate Africans.

The Mali Empire, Oyo Empire, Benin Kingdom, the Ashantis and co. are enough to make me proud. I do not have to be anything other than African to be proud.

And you know what? My pride is based on FACTS Not delusional stuffs