Pale Skin/Black Genes: Yorkshire clan linked to Africa
By
Ogu Eji Ofo Anu
Cutting edge genetic research increasingly adds weight to the proposition that people of African origin have lived in Europe and Britain for centuries.
A study carried out by a team of experts from Leicester University published in European Journal of Human Genetics found that seven men bearing a rare Yorkshire surname carry a very rare genetic signature previously thought to express only in people of African origin.
Although the men appeared to have a shared common ancestor in the 18th Century, the African DNA lineage they carry probably arrived in Britain hundreds of years earlier.
The Y Chromosome:
The Y chromosome is a string of genetic material found only in males, which is passed down from father to son, more or less in its original form.
The Y chromosome accumulates small changes (as a result of mutations) in its DNA sequence, over the course of time. By analyzing these changes, scientists are able to study the relationships between different male lineages as well as population movements.
These period mutational changes that occur in the Y chromosome allow its categorization into different groups (called haplogroups) which, provide useful tools in determining a person’s geographical ancestry.
Certain haplogroups might be very common in, for example, East Asia and very rare in Europe. Inferences are made on a haplogroup`s geographical origin based on its prevalence in a particular region of the world. Although this is a crude way of deducing ancestral geographical origins, it represents the cutting edge of today’s genetic science.
Pale-Skin and Black Genes:
Haplogroup A1, is highly West African-specific. It is a very old haplogroup which presence is very rare even in the west African region.
There are only 25 other people known worldwide with this gene and they are all African. Yet, this recent study has sequenced this haplogroup in 7 pale-skin English men living in Yorkshire.
That an African specific gene which has only been sequenced in 25 Africans should be discovered in 7 white-men living in one small town in England is indeed highly significant and provocatively suggestive.
Family tree:
According to the BBC News-site which also reported on this study, the study began with one individual who had no knowledge of any African heritage in his family.
Upon sequencing the unusual haplogroup, the scientist decided to expand their study to determine the extent of the haplogroup’s presence in the genetic make-up of Yorkshire men.
Since sharing a surname significantly raises the likelihood of sharing the same ancestor and hence the same type of Y chromosome, the researchers started recruiting people with the same last name, which starts with “R” and originates in Yorkshire.
18 men were tested, seven carried the rare African haplogroup. This ratio represents a mind boggling percentage when one considers the rareness of this gene even in west Africa. It appears to indicate an early colonization of Yorkshire by people of west African descent.
An attempt to fit the men into a family tree suggests that they had shared a common ancestor as of the 18th century. Further analysis however confirms that the haplogroup had a presence on the British Isle that dated many centuries prior to the 18th.
Migration Routes:
Although majority of the Black people living in England today originated in Africa and the Carribean in the second half of the 20th century, there were also Africans living in Britain before the 20th Century.
One must not forget that the Ibero-maurisians who are believed to have settled the British Isle in the pre-historic times were mostly Black Africans who had crossed into Spain from North Africa and then crossed the Alps or sailed the North sea into the British Isle.
Traditions also insist that the Phoenicians, another group of Africans usually passed off by racist minded scholars as “brown mediterranean types” originally came from the Horn of Africa. Phoenicians were known to have colonized the British Isle and extracted precious minerals from its mines including tin.
Scottish and Irish legends also hold that certain Egyptians had also colonized the Isle as traders, and then later as political exiles. Those Egyptians were Black Africans many of whose latter-day descendants live with pale skins covering black genes.
The Roman Empire was largely situated in North Africa geographically speaking. Thus many African Romans had a great influence on the Roman Empire. A Black African lawyer from Mauritania named Spetimus Severus had ruled Roman Empire from the capital Roman and even established an illustrious dynasty of Black Roman rulers. At that time, Britain was an outlaying backwater territory of celtic and germanic barbarians with whom the Romans rarely interacted.
At one point, the Romans administrators of the British colony had built the Hadrian’s wall, an early fort used to control the movement of barbarian tribes. Black Roman soldiers of African descent garrisoned this fort. Thousands of those soldiers settled and had children in England with the locals. Recent studies have confirmed the African origin of many osteological and genetic samples recovered from Roman cemetries near the Hadrian’s wall.
One must recall the Moors who had ruled a great part of southern Europe for periods ranging between 300 - 800 years. These Moors were the light of dark-age Europe and introduced the ancient sciences, medicine, mathematics, architecture and luxury goods into Europe, even further afield from their southern European sphere of influence. Their contribution facilitated the birth of western Europe which is wrongly termed as the Renassiance.
Finally, mention must be made of the several thousand Africans who were subsequently kidnapped and trade with the connivance of the elites of Europe into enforced slavery between 1516 and 1830 AD.
The first (Unknown) Black President of the United States: Paleskins/Black Genes In Action:
Human migration history is very complex, particularly for an island nation such as England, and this study further debunks the idea of the Aryan white homogenous germanic English race. It demonstrates that underneath many pale skins lie black African genes!
For example, When scientists analysed the DNA of the third US president, Thomas Jefferson, they found that his Y chromosome belonged to a haplogroup known as K2.
Although Jefferson’s father claimed Welsh ancestry, genetics has disproved this claim as false since his Y-haplogroup is rare in Europe and has not yet been reported in Britain.
In fact, genetic studies show that Thomas Jefferson’s K2 haplogroup ultimately came from north-east Africa or the Middle East, the areas where it is most commonly found today. It is thus highly probably that Jefferson was a recent descent of some un-named and denied Somali, Kenyan, or Sudanese making him the first Black president of the United States.
Incidentally, Jefferson, a founding father of the United States and one of the better known writers and signatory of the US constitution had a known preference for African women that he had enslaved on his plantation. He actually fathered a whole tribe of unacknowledged “mulatto” children from those Black women many of whom he enslaved or sold.
Someone once said that terrible crimes have been aided and abetted under the ignorant white-out of racist prejudice.
Ogu Eji Ofo Anu
January 25th, 2007.
Sources:
BBC NEWS:
Published: 2007/01/24
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/6293333.stm
The African Land of Spain: http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/2006/08/25/the-african-land-of-spain/
The Black Romans: http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/2006/06/29/the-black-romans/
Blacks in Rome: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/wear/3181666.stm
43 Responses “Pale Skin/Black Genes: African Tribes of Europe”
This is just more evidence that racism and bigotry is unjustified and hypocritical. Jefferson, was conflicted between his relationship with his slaves and towards the end of his life, slavery in general and if he knew this information he would probably spread his tolerance during his presidency.
April 6th, 2007 at 9:42 am. Permalink.
I think the progress we have made since the time of Thomas Jefferson is unreal. The fact that we have the capabilities to trace the things discussed in this article is phenominal. I must agree with Tom on his point with Thomas Jefferson potentially changing his view during his presidency.
April 9th, 2007 at 3:40 pm. Permalink.
I agree with what Tom and Bradley said. The scientific breakthrough is incredible and the truth behind Jefferson race and his reasoning behind his views are intriguing as well
April 9th, 2007 at 4:55 pm. Permalink.
this is talking about a gene on the y chrome of afircan americans. why would you think that their would be no white color skined person not have this gene, esepecical since the world took part in slavery. and we all know that blacks and whites inter acted with one another during slavery, so why wouldn’t the gene be based on from one “generation” to the next.
April 9th, 2007 at 6:09 pm. Permalink.
“Underneath many pale skins lie black African genes!” - What a breakthrough! It is quite intriguing to know that what was originally thought to be a Yorkshire ‘white’ male lineage turned out to be West African, which implies that procreative liasions with white English women must have continued for some generations.
April 9th, 2007 at 6:47 pm. Permalink.
The developments they are making in genetics are really amazing and useful. This is a huge discovery since only 25 other people were known to have the haplogroup. It is interesting to find out how different cultures really aren’t so different.
April 9th, 2007 at 8:03 pm. Permalink.
This article once again shows the relationships between Africans and Whites. Science is very interesting and it is more remarkable that scientists are able to make the connection with the african ancestry of a white president. I wonder if this was public knowledge when Jefferson was President, if people would have had the same outlook on minorities in office, especially presidency.
April 9th, 2007 at 9:34 pm. Permalink.
I think the power of education is incredible!! I think this connection between Africa and a lot of white people will more than likely be overlooked because of the steretypes of Africans in both America and Europe. I think this information overall is very interesting.
April 9th, 2007 at 11:18 pm. Permalink.
This article was very interesting. I feel that it is always important to prove speculation. We can all speculate that the original source of live originated on the continent, but to be able to have such scientific proof is amazing. There is so much that can be said about tracing ones roots and regardless of whether or not you are fair skinned or dark skinned, it is really true that as humans, we really do share that basic, very broad, connection to the continent of Africa.
April 9th, 2007 at 11:54 pm. Permalink.
Its amazing that i don’t find this article shocking because slavery existed in the early ages and during this time, slave masters took advantages of their black slaves which would makes it obvious to find black chromosomes under pale white skins. But what i do find amazing is the fact that worldwide, there are 25 haptogenes as well as haptogenes found in 7 pale skin english men in yorkshire
April 10th, 2007 at 6:59 am. Permalink.
This is very interesting, however since race more so than ethnic background is determinant of social position, the implications of this research are minimal. To suggest that African genes in phenotypically white people will cause an African identity is near impossible. Nonetheless, linking people to regions via genetics is very cutting edge.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:14 am. Permalink.
No genetic definition of race. Race is a social construction that was made up to keep white supremacy in power. Being of a region is genetic; race identifies your ethnic background built to bring down people of “color”. Jefferson raping slaves and having mulatoo children is seen as a satire perspective towards Europe perspective, the fact that History is seen as a Eurocentric ideology which ignores other peoples history, or leaves out historical knowledge that compels information.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:22 am. Permalink.
I must agree with the majority when they say that it is interesting that there is defintely a connection between whites and blacks. Although slavery existed in the long run whites and blacks are part of the same genetics
April 11th, 2007 at 8:07 am. Permalink.
I just wanted to ask what are they comparing these samples of these men towards? I mean the comment mentioned in class about Oprah being from West Africa, how do they know and who are they comparing these samples towards?
April 11th, 2007 at 10:16 pm. Permalink.
amy noyes/E
April 18th, 2007 at 11:49 am. Permalink.
amy noyes /Eguono Inweh to answer your questions first . 1 amy noyes how can you have a white colored person that makes no sense the only brown you find in white skin is taned skin by the sun. The test were done by taking the genes of every african country and some from the middle east and asia and compare them to african genes u see the y chromosome is found in all Africans not whites unless mixed with black or coming from black. The Y chromosome is found in the males not the females which means white would mix with black and the male would have the gene not the woman who is carring the child so if you are mixing white with black you still get black look at Baraka Obama half white/black which race is he identified with. Yor thery of white colored people would suggest that white came first than why wouldn’t it be in every white person versus a minimum amout of whites having the gene present and Blacks dominating the gene not tomention that the same y gene is found in parts of china and japan and middle east and artifacts that date befor the existance of europe asia and the americas. That would mean that whites came first and populated the world when it is proven that white skin can’t handle over exposer to heat or there skin will be cancerous and turn a pink color like the ones in Australia witch has one of the hightest skinn cancer rate among people and white people in general. Do u really think whites could survive africas heat especially when the skinn of dark people are bult to have a high tolerance to heat and cold to ignore or try to come up w/ reason to disprove sience we can never win let’s all except that we are all linked by once sorce from Africa u don’t half tolike it but that’s your problem. Eguono Inwe: there is a diffrence between pale white skin and white skinn pale white skin has no color and the y is only in men and not in females so when they are raped by white men and the gene are in black men and a small amount of whites wouldn’t that white gene have no Y in it and if we take on the fathers genes then white men and black women do not have the y chromosome in them that is not dorment and undetected unless looked for extesively then that’s the cunclusion that whites couldn’t come first the y gene is in every race of people and found mostly and more domintly in africans thats one reason besides ather races having the same trait in them that all suround one souce Alkebu-Lan (Africa). The oldest bones of humans not that ape lucy but a human bones are foun in Ethiopia not Europe wouldn’t the oldest bones be found in Europe if whites came first why can’t whites have black babies if they were the first besides when the male has that Y chromosome that is dormant but can still come to the surface proving a dominante gene is in the Africans. So think otherwise would suggest blacks adapted there genes to be stronger than anyother wich is unlikely also the fact that is asia two asian couples gave birth to a baby of dark complection futher proves the range of the Y gene and African people. Not tomention JAPANS proverbs states that a good sumari has tohave a lil black in them and the first shogun of japan was black asiatic male named Sakanouge tamara maro. and the first dynasty of china the “xin” dynasty were described as oily skinned black people. I am not saying everyone is black because genes adopt and change but to say everyone for the most part are of African Decent is a Accurate statement thank God for Sience hopefully people will see the truth and not listen to these racistt idiots that saw the beauti of Alkebu-Lan and took advantage of a peaceful people fro the most part and made them to be monsters to defend slavery by saying they are animals when infact the genes of Africa gave birth to all we have today fromscience to math to that calender People so much love was first adapted in egypt. I erge people to look into history of Black people and see we are not all gangbanger criminals and animals but in fact like in other races we have our bad and our good and our good is much more than the bad the media of america shows us to be there is shitty in every race. it’s just to bad that we will never have peace on earth so haters are going to hate it is up to the individual to make there own choices in life.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:21 pm. Permalink.
in responce to alkebulanian. the first man and women was blackskin. however, At some point in time, maybe billions of years later, maybe less, a gene mutation occured and an albino child was produced. for we know it is possible for two very blackskin parents to produce an albino baby with blond hair and blue eyes and very white skin. There must have been a tribe that had some protein deficience because of a famine. This famine must have lasted for many years, which affected the genes. even today in countries where there is famine, when the women have babies the hair structure changes to straighter hair, and the color of the hair changes to red or a blonde type, the skin becomes somewhat lighter and in a few of the babies the skin is albino with very blonde hair. the question is how did the africans deal with the situation of the albinos. we know that africa had an advanced civilization. Thus, the doctors and goverments of ancient africa must have decided to send the albinos to the north around the baltic sea to live where the climate is cold and more condusive to the albino. tempertures of eighty degrees and above is not condusive for albino skin. these tempertures could cause the skin to burn and cause cancer. The blue eyes could not take the sun rays special eye wear is needed to block the sun rays. now, there was a second type of skin problem that also developed among the africans, which was called leprosy. the babies were black skin, but there was a bowel dysfuntion which caused the bowels to backup and go into the bloodstream, which caused leprosy. there are certain foods that promotes making bowels and these foods are grains. example wheat, brans, etc. Thus without the proper diet, leprosy can occur. Thus, a person starts losing his or her beautiful black skin and skin sores develop, etc. Thus, there are two types. The leprod and the albino. The next problem to be dealt with is the african rejection of the albinos and the descendents of the leprosy people in that epoch of history when they tried to head back home to africa. In the ancient of time the albino and the decendants of the leprosy people were rejected by the africans and anytime the sought to enter africa they were killed by the africans. They were also murdered by the natives in south america who were also blackskin. If you research the pictorial carvings of both africa and south america, you will see the natives in both afria and south america cuttin off the heads of these whiteskin people. It was only later in time that they they started using these people as slaves. These slaves worked underground in mines and tunnels for they could not withstand the heat. Thus, they were kept hidden from the mainstream society and they also were made to live in caves.Thus they were designated to places where they could live outside of the mainstream society.
In the ancient of days Spain, italy and greece france, ireland briton, were occupied by africans. The meditteranean was coverd by land. Thus, the land was attavhed to Africa. The ancient whiteskin people decendent of the albinos and leprosy people came from the land near the baltics near russia and spread out in what was formerly called the soviet union. They were not living in spain, italy, greece,france, briton, or ireland. The only people living in these lands were africans. after millions of years passed by when the Albino started entering africa and now in the days of the pyramid, the albino stoled a kemet princess name yaruba, and brought this princess to live near the baltics. She became their ruler and her decendents spread across the lands of spain, france. The pharoah went to war with the albinos to get his daughter back. the pharoah won the war and colonized the lands near the baltic sea and furthered his advances to the lands of spain and france fighting with the africans already living in those lands.Thus, this was a blackskin on blackskin war. Two Great african Dynasties fighting against each other. The land of the Pharoahs needed the natural resources from spain and france also it was a good stratigic point to launch their ships down the coast of west africa and wait for the trade winds to bring them to the land of the tainos and mexico and then to south america for trade. For, the africans of spain and west africa were already bringing their ships to the islands of the west indies south america and north america, long before the pyramids. at some epoch north america and the west indian land mass were much greater and then some catastrophe happened which caused the land mass to seperate and create the atlantic ocean. Also, at some point spain land mass was also attached to africa and the rest of the medditerannean lands also split causing the meditteranean water. The Africans ruled the planet earth for billions of years. However, the ancient kemet documents reveal that the first blackman came from another planet and fell down to earth. Thus, the blackman origins are not from this earth, but is from some other galaxy. kemet is egypt.
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:08 am. Permalink.
to long
May 4th, 2007 at 7:30 am. Permalink.
K2 is not equal to black African. The highest prevalence of K2 seems to be clustered around the Red (Erythrean) Sea (the mythical source of the proto-Phoenicians, per Herodotus) in countries such as Somalia, Ethiopia, Egypt, Oman, and Iraq where it approaches 10-15% of the population.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:48 am. Permalink.
Genetics haberdash is not news ,but the white lie exposed, surprisingly enough by one. Well done scientist(s),tell us more was Jesus Black?Were Adam and Eve?
June 1st, 2007 at 7:12 am. Permalink.
During the slave trade of the 16th and 17th centuries approximately 20 000 black (not “African”, that means something very different) slaves were taken into Britian. Most of these people died childless, but a very few(probably less than 70) were assimilated into the British peasant or woking class. Today their descendants look white, and have approximately 0.4 black DNA. Does that make them black, or prove that “race doesn’t exist”? Of course not. A small minority of one population having less than one per cent non-indigenous DNA proves nothing at all. The author of this article also uses the feeble and inherently flawed Roman Empire story, claiming that the Romans controlled the North African coast, there must have been blacks in the Empire(since all Africans are supposedly black). However the natural North African look is the sportsman Zinidine Zidane(sp?). Not white, but certainly nothing like West African black. May I just ask what this obssession with “proving” that black people settled the entire world, and built all civilizations comes from? And that whites, Chinese etc are recent mutations of the “pure” black race? It’s riciculous and very offensive. Is this the black way of “getting back” for hundreds of years of slavery and racial discrimiantion? Or do some people actually believe this garbage?
June 6th, 2007 at 11:58 pm. Permalink.
any whatever that starts with the word racial,means just that,y’know,Racism=”white” supremacy=Apartheid,;continuosly denying their African root but deep down desire(impossible)to be so(Black). Again I and I pray, begin by treating dem Africans(negroids)as people and brothers FIRST, then as whatever else crosses yourz feaful genetic annihilate minds.Only then will the impartial MOST HIGH JAH(HOVAH)bless all(birthrate).
June 13th, 2007 at 1:17 am. Permalink.
Nice to see the moderators deleting links to scientific sites that disprove the “Pale Skin/Black Genes” hypothesis. And someone called it “racist” too! I guess that is “Afrocentrism”’s central argument….when confronted with the truth, ignore it and/or call it “racist”!
June 20th, 2007 at 4:19 am. Permalink.
And, for the thousandth time, when Greeks or Romans referred to “black people”, what they meant were Arabs, Indians/Pakistanis, Egyptians, Yemenis etc.
In fact, the Romans did not consider “black Africans” to even be human. They regarded them as part of the same broader species of gorilla. Racist yes, but that’s the way they felt.
June 20th, 2007 at 5:08 am. Permalink.
John Dunn
Can you cite a scholarly reference indicating that Romans considered Africans to be gorillas?
If you cannot cite one reference, then you would have demonstrated clearly to the wide world that comes here, that not only are you a mischevious little goblin, you would also be a low life racist troll actuated by malice, jealousy, and a low self esteem emanating from physical and mental inadequacy.
So there John Dunn…we give you a chance to redeem your scholarly credentials.
Put up or shut up!!!
Jahdey
June 20th, 2007 at 12:22 pm. Permalink.
Sorry, I was wrong on that one. The correct Roman term for “black Africans” (which is a self-contradictory term) was “sima” meaning “monkey-like”.
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/ar.....trikes.php
Also, check out the Sarich/Miele book “Race” (although since it’s called “Race”, it must be “racist”!:)
Also, the (modern) “Great Chain Of Being” likened “blacks” as an intermediate form between true humans(Eurasians) and apes.
Look, let’s get one thing straight here….I have no problem with Sub-Saharan people, nor with their right to self-pride. I do, however, object to this obvious attempt to distort historical reality for purely political and social reasons.
Also, calling people “racist” because they say that modern adn Ancient Egyptians are the same bloodline, but when “Afrocentrists” insult modern Egyptians and claim that they are not the descendants of their ancestors, then that ISN’T racist?
ALL scientific study shows that North Africans cluster much sloer to Middle Easterners and Europeans than Sub-Saharans. When Tutankhamen’s skull was presented to biologists to identify it(without their being told whose skull it was) they all identified it as belonging to a North African Caucasoid. I don’t hate “black people”. I do hate “black people” distorting history in order to make themselves feel better about themselves, fantasizing about some “great past”. Likewise I also hate Nordic morons distorting history to make the Romans/Greeks out to be Scandinavian-looking.
ANY distortion of history angers me. Look, the Egyptians/Moors/Carthaginians/Phoenicians etc were all Middle-Eastern looking then, and their descendants still are today. The original settlers of Europe were not “black Africans”. There are literally thousands of books, articles etc. that show how silly this article is.
June 20th, 2007 at 11:45 pm. Permalink.
Why is is that “black Africans” can offend Europeans, North Africans, Middle Easterners, Asians etc, and it is a “good thing” about finding “the truth of Yahweh” or some such like, but if a Eurasian says something that is even perceived as being anti-”African”, then it is the cause for front page news and the President giving a speech about it?
June 21st, 2007 at 1:33 am. Permalink.
Jahdey challenges John Dunce:
John Dunn, can you cite a scholarly reference indicating that Romans considered Africans to be gorillas?
John Dunn replied:
Sorry, I was wrong on that one.
Jahdey Continues:
Then like a complete ignoramus John Dunce who can barely read and write cites an Aryanist website as a scholarly reference. According to John Dunce:
“The correct Roman term for “black Africans” (which is a self-contradictory term) was “sima” meaning monkey-like”. http://www.amren.com/mtnews/ar…..trikes.php
Jahdey Continues: John Dunce, this is not a scholarly reference. It is an Araynist website.
The Romans called the Black people Africans after the Aferis tribe of coastal East Africa. They also called Black people Maures which is a latin term for Black. They called them Ethiopians after the Greeks who used that name to designate Black faced people. They sometimes called them Negre, a latin root for Negroes which the American slave masters corrupted into Negro. And they called them Egyptians also because Black people owned Egypt from eternity to eternity.
Go check the Oxford Websters Dictionary for the etymology of the words Maures, Negre, Ethiopians and African. Go read the works of classical geographer Strabo, check Herodotus on History; read up Pliny , and read up Wallis Budge the translator of the many Egyptian books.
I could go on endlessly, but I better stop here since I realize now that John Dunce is a classical Dunce, a nuisance and a troll.
I had challenged you to redeem your scholarly pretensions but you just showed us that you are only interested in prowling Aryanist Hitlerite sites wishing to maintain a false status quo. You are pathetic.
There is no record of anytime that the Romans were antipathetic to Africans. Rather they hated and despised your barbarian ancestors in Europe whom they kept as hewers of wood and drawers of water.
The entire western Europe was one big Roman slave plantation and they would not interact with the lower beings (that they rightly or wrongly thought the Europeans were). Such attitude still persists in Europe and America today in the form of upper class/lower class distinction between races of pale Europeans. The upper class feel they have some claim on the Roman legacy and as such are distinct from the race of white trash from which the likes of John Dunn emanate.
In the proper scheme of the pale-white world, the white trash are expendable, disposable, uncouth ignorant low brow neanderthals. I do not subscribe to this view myself, but indeed this is the true and well kept secret of the Eurolanders. Check for yourself and confirm the facts. Begin with the famous letters of Tacitus the Roman General widely available on the net, read up Herodotus, check the Ashkenazi Jewish Talmud. Read the more modern history works of Gibbons. Examine the annonymously authored works called Protocol of the Elders of Zion. Then proceed to European classics like Shakesperian literature. One may also dwell on classical American, English, Spainish and Irish history. Then you may also read up the second part of Karl Marx’s Das Kapital and the works of Ernest Engel especially the Manifesto of the Communist party.
John Dunce, since you have not risen to this occassion, you will remain not only a mischevious little goblin, you would also be a low life, low brow racist troll actuated by malice, jealousy, and a low self esteem emanating from physical and mental inadequacy.
Please save yourself further embarrasment.
Jahdey
June 21st, 2007 at 7:09 am. Permalink.
John Dunn has quite simply exposed his own cretinous,ill thought out racist ideology and has no place in any intelligent debate. John Dunns intellectual capacities are perhaps most closely compared to some of the higher mammals,like i dunno maybe a monkey!
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:41 am. Permalink.
Wow, you guys aren’t getting personal t all are you? Once again an “African” can make racist, offensive comments, but if someone simply states fact, then they are wrong! Also, when I couldn’t find an online source(which is not to say that there is no such mention) and admit it, I am insulted. You guys have never admitted any of your hundreds of ludicrous factual errors.
Okay, in acnient times “Africa” was simply Tunisia and parts of Western Libya. The Libyans were renowned for the blueness of their eyes, and Carthaginians were simply Phoenicians ie Lebanese. There was no concept of the “Continent of Africa”, as nobody considered modern “Africa” to be one continent. People SOUTH of the Sahara were called “Aethiops”, “Negroes” etc. People NORTH of the Sahara were never called “Aethiop” etc.
http://www.geoccities.com/enbp/quotes.html
Does anyone dispute that Ancient Egyptians and Moors were darker than your average European? Of course not(well some Nordicist idiots which I amo not, may).
However simply being darker than someone sle doesn’t mean you are a different race. Greeks are in turn darker than Norwegians. Does that make them a different race?
http://www.sitesled.com/member.....icans.html
http://www.sitesled.com/member.....nubia.html
http://www.sitesled.com/member.....moors.html
http://www.sitesled.com/member.....color.html
Although, I’m pretty sure some “African” is going to say that the site is “racist”, or “Hitlerite” or some such hollow insult.
Also, if there is a single “African” people then why are only “African-Americans” trumpeting it? Why aren’t actual people in “the continent of Africa” “coming together as one”? What was the Rwanda Genocide but a RACIST encounter between Hutus and Tutsis(who are different races)? Why is there trouble in Darfur? Could it be that the people involved are from two different, and mutually hateful, racial groupings? Why are is there warfare all over “Africa” based solely on ethnic/racial lines? And don’t blame it on a “legacy of colonialism” or some such claptrap. The fact is the people can immediately tell who is of their race and who is not. And people, like it or not, group with their own. The Hutus and Tutsis both realized that the other people were NOT their own race and acted attrociously, but no more so than other racial genocides in history. The fact is most “African-Americans” are so mixed with European and Native American DNA that they have a wide variety of looks, and virtually none of these look like TRUE Black People. Anyone FROM “Africa” can immediately tell a West African from say an East African. And all DNA testing show that there is a far greater DNA variation in the Sub-Saharan region than the rest of the world combined! What is “race” but DNA clusterings? And yes West Africans form a distinct DNA clustering, East Africans form a distinct DNA clustering etc. Of course North Africans cluster with Middle Eastern people, as do DNA testings on Ancient North African remains.
“Afrocentrism” is simply a misguided attempt by “African-Americans” to give themselves an identity and some sort of “glorious past” after centuries of abuse and mistreatment at the hands of the American slavers. The slavers robbed them from their homes, stole their names (a black guy called Bill Cosby?), stole their language(making them speak English), stole thir culture, stole their identity, stole their dignity, and stole their humanity(calling them “three-fifths” of a person, “boy”, “nigger” and worse). They also stole their DNA structure, as the depraved white slavers raped the black slavewomen, mixing the bloodstream, and refusing to recognise their own children as anything other than “niggers”. If the slaves fought back they were beaten, flooged, lynched. Even after slavery was abolished, there is still a social structure in the USA that strives to deliberately keep black people on the bottom. And NO REPEARATIONS FOR THIS DISGUSTING CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY HAVE EVER BEEN MADE.
Thus it is understandable that the “African-Americans” are angry, no pissed off! The 2 MAJOR issues are the treatment of their ancestors, and theft of basic self-pride and dignity, and the fact that they have no idea who their original ancestors are/were.
The “African” model suits both purposes. While some white American can pinpoint the exact village in Ireland his ancestors came from, and they even still have the family name, the Black Americans have no idea where they came from. Their names, memories, even the way they look have been lost forever. They know only that they came from “the continent of Africa” so they claim the whole continent as their Mother Country, as it’s undeniable that that is where their ancestors came from. Thus “Africa” becomes not what it is(a vast landmass of over a billion people, with thousands of ethnicities, cultures, languages, and the broadest range of DNA on the planet), but rather single country! Many African-Americans talk about “Africa” as though it’s the size of Belgium, and all people speak “African”, and practise “African culture”! When someone points out that “Africa” is NOT one state, and of the myriad of different peoples, each with their own unique language, culture, history, identity etc., not to mentuion their own distinctive look(far more so than Europeans, most people couldn’t tell a Greek from an Italian say, but anybody could tell an Eritrean from a Zulu etc.), then they are shattering the illussion of “Africa”. Watch ANY US tv show, and see Oprah or Martin Larence or whoever talk about “Africa” the same way someone would talk about Scotland, ie one small region with a uniform people. Sorry people but Africa is enormous, and the different peoples bear that out. By saying that there is a single “African” people YOU are the racist ones, as lumping such diverse peoples into a single generic “African” “tribe” is exactly what the slavers did, ie “All Africans are the same, they have no distinctive cultures, languages etc. They’re savages”.
Also, the other big point is that modern African-Americans are an oppressed people. They have suffered hundreds of years of slavery and mistreatment, and it’s unlikely that Bush or anyone else will ever even attempt to give them some sort of token reparation or apology for this disgusting act against them. They still live with the knowledge of how their ancestors, their family, were mistreated and abused. Thus we get “Black Egypt” and “Black Moors”, fantasies of times when Blacks ruled over Whites, and Blacks had White Slaves. By fantasizing about this imaginary past, and distorting history, it gives modern mistreated Black Americans a chance to say “yeah, well there was a time when we treated YOU like cattle or property”. There has also been a massive amount of books etc about black superheroes with their white whores, and evil Neo-Nazis with blonde hair and blue eyes, brought down by the noble Black Hero. But none of this changes anything. The White Corporation is happy to peddle out mythical pasts about Black Egyptians and Black Moors(but notice the imediate attacks when it was claimed that the Israelites were Black?), not just because of White American bias against Muslim cultures like modern Morocco and Egypt, but because none of this changes the fact of how Blacks are treated NOW. The Black people can study “Black History” and go around in daydreams about how the Egyptians were black, but they are still mistreated by the White American Leaders. Rather than attempt to tackle the misbalance of American Society they go “Oh here’s something to take pride in”. By ignoring the relevant issues TODAY, and focusing on some non-existent past(that is offensive to Egyptians, Moors, Tunisians and others), they “Afrocentrists” are essentially doing nothing more than Minstrel Dancing.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:12 am. Permalink.
Wow, you guys aren’t getting personal at all are you? Once again an “African” can make racist, offensive comments, but if someone simply states fact, then they are wrong! Also, when I couldn’t find an online source(which is not to say that there is no such mention) and admit it, I am insulted. You guys have never admitted any of your hundreds of ludicrous factual errors.
Okay, in acnient times “Africa” was simply Tunisia and parts of Western Libya. The Libyans were renowned for the blueness of their eyes, and Carthaginians were simply Phoenicians ie Lebanese. There was no concept of the “Continent of Africa”, as nobody considered modern “Africa” to be one continent. People SOUTH of the Sahara were called “Aethiops”, “Negroes” etc. People NORTH of the Sahara were never called “Aethiop” etc.
http://www.geoccities.com/enbp/quotes.html
Does anyone dispute that Ancient Egyptians and Moors were darker than your average European? Of course not(well some Nordicist idiots which I amo not, may).
However simply being darker than someone sle doesn’t mean you are a different race. Greeks are in turn darker than Norwegians. Does that make them a different race?
(I attemptedto post some links her about Ancient North Africa, but they were flagged as “spam”!)
Although, I’m pretty sure some “African” is going to say that the site is “racist”, or “Hitlerite” or some such hollow insult.
Also, if there is a single “African” people then why are only “African-Americans” trumpeting it? Why aren’t actual people in “the continent of Africa” “coming together as one”? What was the Rwanda Genocide but a RACIST encounter between Hutus and Tutsis(who are different races)? Why is there trouble in Darfur? Could it be that the people involved are from two different, and mutually hateful, racial groupings? Why are is there warfare all over “Africa” based solely on ethnic/racial lines? And don’t blame it on a “legacy of colonialism” or some such claptrap. The fact is the people can immediately tell who is of their race and who is not. And people, like it or not, group with their own. The Hutus and Tutsis both realized that the other people were NOT their own race and acted attrociously, but no more so than other racial genocides in history. The fact is most “African-Americans” are so mixed with European and Native American DNA that they have a wide variety of looks, and virtually none of these look like TRUE Black People. Anyone FROM “Africa” can immediately tell a West African from say an East African. And all DNA testing show that there is a far greater DNA variation in the Sub-Saharan region than the rest of the world combined! What is “race” but DNA clusterings? And yes West Africans form a distinct DNA clustering, East Africans form a distinct DNA clustering etc. Of course North Africans cluster with Middle Eastern people, as do DNA testings on Ancient North African remains.
“Afrocentrism” is simply a misguided attempt by “African-Americans” to give themselves an identity and some sort of “glorious past” after centuries of abuse and mistreatment at the hands of the American slavers. The slavers robbed them from their homes, stole their names (a black guy called Bill Cosby?), stole their language(making them speak English), stole thir culture, stole their identity, stole their dignity, and stole their humanity(calling them “three-fifths” of a person, “boy”, “nigger” and worse). They also stole their DNA structure, as the depraved white slavers raped the black slavewomen, mixing the bloodstream, and refusing to recognise their own children as anything other than “niggers”. If the slaves fought back they were beaten, flooged, lynched. Even after slavery was abolished, there is still a social structure in the USA that strives to deliberately keep black people on the bottom. And NO REPEARATIONS FOR THIS DISGUSTING CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY HAVE EVER BEEN MADE.
Thus it is understandable that the “African-Americans” are angry, no pissed off! The 2 MAJOR issues are the treatment of their ancestors, and theft of basic self-pride and dignity, and the fact that they have no idea who their original ancestors are/were.
The “African” model suits both purposes. While some white American can pinpoint the exact village in Ireland his ancestors came from, and they even still have the family name, the Black Americans have no idea where they came from. Their names, memories, even the way they look have been lost forever. They know only that they came from “the continent of Africa” so they claim the whole continent as their Mother Country, as it’s undeniable that that is where their ancestors came from. Thus “Africa” becomes not what it is(a vast landmass of over a billion people, with thousands of ethnicities, cultures, languages, and the broadest range of DNA on the planet), but rather single country! Many African-Americans talk about “Africa” as though it’s the size of Belgium, and all people speak “African”, and practise “African culture”! When someone points out that “Africa” is NOT one state, and of the myriad of different peoples, each with their own unique language, culture, history, identity etc., not to mentuion their own distinctive look(far more so than Europeans, most people couldn’t tell a Greek from an Italian say, but anybody could tell an Eritrean from a Zulu etc.), then they are shattering the illussion of “Africa”. Watch ANY US tv show, and see Oprah or Martin Larence or whoever talk about “Africa” the same way someone would talk about Scotland, ie one small region with a uniform people. Sorry people but Africa is enormous, and the different peoples bear that out. By saying that there is a single “African” people YOU are the racist ones, as lumping such diverse peoples into a single generic “African” “tribe” is exactly what the slavers did, ie “All Africans are the same, they have no distinctive cultures, languages etc. They’re savages”.
Also, the other big point is that modern African-Americans are an oppressed people. They have suffered hundreds of years of slavery and mistreatment, and it’s unlikely that Bush or anyone else will ever even attempt to give them some sort of token reparation or apology for this disgusting act against them. They still live with the knowledge of how their ancestors, their family, were mistreated and abused. Thus we get “Black Egypt” and “Black Moors”, fantasies of times when Blacks ruled over Whites, and Blacks had White Slaves. By fantasizing about this imaginary past, and distorting history, it gives modern mistreated Black Americans a chance to say “yeah, well there was a time when we treated YOU like cattle or property”. There has also been a massive amount of books etc about black superheroes with their white whores, and evil Neo-Nazis with blonde hair and blue eyes, brought down by the noble Black Hero. But none of this changes anything. The White Corporation is happy to peddle out mythical pasts about Black Egyptians and Black Moors(but notice the imediate attacks when it was claimed that the Israelites were Black?), not just because of White American bias against Muslim cultures like modern Morocco and Egypt, but because none of this changes the fact of how Blacks are treated NOW. The Black people can study “Black History” and go around in daydreams about how the Egyptians were black, but they are still mistreated by the White American Leaders. Rather than attempt to tackle the misbalance of American Society they go “Oh here’s something to take pride in”. By ignoring the relevant issues TODAY, and focusing on some non-existent past(that is offensive to Egyptians, Moors, Tunisians and others), they “Afrocentrists” are essentially doing nothing more than Minstrel Dancing.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:13 am. Permalink.
Okay, that link was wrong, it should be:
http://www.geocities.com/enbp/quotes.html
I got confused by having to delte links to the “racial reality” webiste (surf for it, as the administrators here regard it as “spam”, presumably because ti refutes various articles on this page).
I stand by my above remark, saying “African” as a broad term is DEMEANING not uplifting to “African” people.
And playing at “Black Pharaoh” today does NOTHING to address the mistreatment of Black Amerians TODAY. Rather than steal somebody else’s history, why not try and do something about the Racist US Social Structure in 2007?
Also, actual “Black Africans” do NOT NEED to pretend they are descended from Ancient Egyptians or Moors or anything else. They are happpy and proud to just be themselves. I only hope there comes a time when “African-Americans” can take genuine pride in their OWN achievments and identity, and don’t need to steal other people’s heritages to make themselves feel worthwhile…
June 25th, 2007 at 12:19 am. Permalink.
First, the article states that the admixture most likely occured in the 17th century. However the administrator merely ignored that! And what makes you think the gene originated in Africa? It is just as likely that an English sailor came ashore and had sex with a local woman. She gave birth to a child who was then re-assimilated back into the African genepool, but with a rare English gene. In other words it’s just as likely that the gene flowed from the Yorkshire family into the African family and not vice versa.
One is reminded of an hysteria few years ago about how somebody had “proved” that Arabic and Southern european “had African genes”. The point was that DNA testing had found a gene common to West Africans, Italians, Greeks and Arabs. Immediately Hitlerite claimed this proved that the Mediterranean populations were hybridized with Black People, while Afrocentrists claimed that this proved that the original Black Egyptians had taken civilization to Europe and the Middle East. It was taken for granted that this gene originated in West Africa. However, deeper research without bias revelaed the truth….virtually all Arabs carry the gene, only about 4% or southern Italians, and about 2.5% of Greeks, and less than 2% of one specific population in West Africa had the gene. In other words more than 99.9% of Africans, and more than 95% of Greeks and Italins DID NOT have the gene, while virtually all Semitic peoples DID have it. It was a Middle eastern gene, and the small West African population who did have it lived in the exact same area were Arab slavers used to raid, and had raped local African woman. Thus, the hysteria about “African genes in Mediterranean populations” had all been bunk. Proper analysis showed that the gene ORIGINATED in modern-day Syria and had flowed out FROM there.
Next, when we talk about “Africans” we must remember that just because there were African civilizations does not mean that ALL Africans were part of them. While there were civilizations in eg Ghana and Mali, they also kept their own Blackskinned slaves. It was these same African slaves who were sold into slavery to go to the USA and Caribbean. In other words, the “mighty” African-Americans were always slaves, first to local civilized Africans(eg in Ghana), and then the slaevs of the White Man. The local civilized blacks took the dregs and human refuse of their society, and it is these people who were then sold into foreign slavery. The Europeans and Arabs could not have taken that aount of people without local African help to round up the most undesirable Africans who lived amongst them.
Next, to John Dunn, you got it wrong. American society is giving Black People every break. There is Black History Month, Black History courses at high school and college, Black Entertainment Television, Black Affirmative Action, Black Power Groups, Black Caucases, Black Miss Maerica Pageants, Black Business Groups, Black Newspapers, Black Magazines etc. And these are all ENCOURAGED by the governement! Now substitute “White” or “Asian” for any of those…eg “Asian Power”, or “White Entertainment Television”, and it’s suddenly offensive! That’s an obvious double standard.
yes there were Great African Civilizations, but the ancestors of people like “t” were probably cleaning out the latrines of the Black Sultan.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:29 am. Permalink.
Nuff with the racial and personal hatred!!!!
An Afrocentric Movement like RastaFarI would serve the continent of Africa/Ethiopia well, if these is so much disunity going on over there. And yes in part, I blame colonialist politics, as, like much of the “developing” world, the rich multinational corporations do go in and exploit the resources and the locals where ever they find the resources they are after…..As for genetics, still a mystery to I, thats why I want to check this DNA tracking tech….sounds legit….I have no idea whats back there in my genes and I am pale skinned and blue eyed….all this speculating about history, we just don’t know enuff to be so certain…which is probably why we argue…uncertainty is unsettling……Luckily for I and I, the mystery is an accepted part of it…and Jah Knows time will tell….
Blessings and Raspect
Sistren Nya
September 5th, 2007 at 3:11 am. Permalink.
This is an interesting page but what is more interesting is the interaction between everyone. It’s small minded to think that black Africans were not present and useful in socities outside of Africa going back as far as first contact between nations. It is also small minded to believe that black Africans are the root of everything. I see so many comments here that seem rooted in a need to prove something. Even if we are referencing old works it doesn’t mean that it’s the final say on a subject. Our idea of race as ever important may not be the way that people saw things hundreds or thousands of years ago. I would imagine they were tougher times and you would work it out with those around you for the common cause of survival. Even including slavery in the US. I’m sure that the slaves of wealthy land owners were probably treated poorly compared a slave in the rural mountains of NC, just as I am more important as an employee to a small business owner than to a giant corporation. Slaves have existed in every society and eventually they have been assimilated into that society.
On a personal note I will say this as a descendant of black African slaves it is important to see that there are black Africans in other areas of the world do other things through out history. I’m sure there were Asian, Slavs and Europeans deep in the heart of black Africa before we would ever think possible and I believe that black Africans have traveled to each of those places as well.
I think it’s a mistake to read too much or too little into the written history that we have access to. Every piece of literature has not survived, everything is not deemed as important to one person to the next and what we read may not be what was intended by the author. I like to think that before black Africans became a hot commodity in the slave trade we were just people living our lives and calling us out as black Africans wasn’t necessary to everyone who put words to page instead they used words like friend, neighbor or shield mate and that was enough.
October 7th, 2007 at 10:48 am. Permalink.
using terms like “white” and “black” when describing genealogical anthropology sounds a lot like Euro-centric/Afro-centric nonsense. At first, I wondered where this board was going, then it became clear that there is an enormous bias going on here. This is certainly not the place for serious OBJECTIVE study.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:04 pm. Permalink.
Hmm. Earlier I stated that “white” and “black” are meaningless terms when applied to race and biology, and I was flamed and insulted in a manner most crude and disgusting. Likewise the terms “African” and “European” mean nothing when we are talking about race/human biology. There are 5 distinct human races and they are not classified by anything as silly as shade of skin or what continent they live on. It’s to do with genetics, morphology, and ancestry. However some people think that a dark-skinned Indian and a dark-skinned Nigerian are somehow equivalent, or that a blue-eyed, blonde-haired Libyan and a Kalahari Bushman are both the same race as they’re both “African”. Look there are not, and never have been, things such as “white”. “black”, “yellow”, European”, “Asian”, African” or any other such races. If you can’t tell why a dark-skinned Moroccan from Africa is the same race as a fair-skinned Swede from Europe, and NOT a dark-skinned Kenyan from Africa, then I suggest you don’t post anything here, and do some research.
January 7th, 2008 at 5:02 am. Permalink.
i know it be a little late to react ,but john dunn claim of Afro-tribal wars current, being race wars has a yes and no to it…yes it is perpetrated by modern day colonialists and collaborators…yes it has to do with western countries acquisition of land and resources in the said land
January 8th, 2008 at 11:43 pm. Permalink.
As an African American, I would like to say that John Dunn did make sense in his later posts, however his claim that warfare in Africa had nothing to do with Colonialism is not true. The conflict in Rwanda had a very direct connection with colonialism. As far as ancient civilizations, we are probably 90% in the dark about what went down. An archeology professor of mine always said that everyday we are a discovery away from re-writing history. The same can probably be said for genetics as well because it is relatively new and there isn’t some “gene bank” containing every human being that ever lived genetic make up. It’s very hard to claim that there weren’t any “black Africans” in North Africa in history. Egypt was a multicultural community as can be seen in their Art and the Rosetta Stone. In terms of linguistics Egyptians spoke an Afro-Asiatic language, which “consensus” and not “pseudo” science has Africa being the Homeland, more specifically the Horn of Africa region. Peace to the Motherland, to where all of us owe our lives,
January 9th, 2008 at 11:35 am. Permalink.
the names that you all are using are names giving to africia by the greeks and romans the original name of the continent is alkebu-lan meaning garden of eden or mother of mankind it is a known fact the the invaders change names in alkebu-lan the hide the truth the world is going to hell and u know why because the whites,jews and arabs keep hiding the turth
March 4th, 2008 at 5:12 pm. Permalink.
To Kevin and evrybody else…
Do you have any idea where the word “africa” itself comes from?
Also, have you noticed how all the fauna, flora, and geology in Africa north of the Sahara is identical to southern Europe? And how the fauna, flora and geology has NOTHING in common with Africa south of the Sahara? If everything from insects to rock formations, to shrubs is the same as southern Europe, then why not people too(who are after all, animals)? The idea of a single “African continent” from the southern shores of the Mediterranean to the tip of South Africa is a recent, and artificial, social construct. It is sad as we get more “intelligent” and “Advanced” that knowledge our ancestors knew is disregarded and ignored. NOBODY up until about 200 years(or less) ago would have considered the people from Morocco to Egypt as having ANYTHING to do with sub-Saharan black people. Now we are told to believe that the Egyptians and Moors(and the Carthaginians?) were “black” people. Have you ever seen the way these people depicted THEMSELVES in paintings, busts, statues and other artworks? Or the way the other peoples of the world depicted them in various forms of artworks? How could anyone in their right mind, and without preformed ideas, claim that these people are akin to West Africans? How can any sane, rational human being see the bust of Nefertiti and see a negro woman? Could someone please answer that for me?
March 24th, 2008 at 3:51 am. Permalink.
just browsing came across this site and believe me when i say ive never heard so much shite in all my life ryan reynolds your the only one who spoke any sense at all even up until about 100yrs ago african/negroids call it what you will were looked upon as no better than animals. to say that nefertiti was a black women would be like saying that adolf hitler was really quite a nice guy just misunderstood! ha ha what a load of shit
May 10th, 2008 at 7:09 pm. Permalink.
Ryan Reynolds and stuart uk
Two classical red neck ignoramuses. You need more history lessons. Read more Rastalive wire for the elucidation of your pale and vapid mind.
Jahdey
May 11th, 2008 at 3:49 am. Permalink.