The First (Black) Europeans: The Original Africans Of Europe – By – Oguejiofo Annu

Spread the love


European Skin Turned Pale Only Recently, Gene Suggests
Ann Gibbons

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA–At the American Association of Physical Anthropologists meeting, held here from 28 to 31 March, a new report on the evolution of a gene for skin color suggested that Europeans acquired pale skin quite recently, perhaps only 6000 to 12,000 years ago.

Science 20 April 2007:
Vol. 316. no. 5823, p. 364
DOI: 10.1126/science.316.5823.364a
Comments on the recent genetic studies:

This research conducted by Europeans descendants seeking the roots of their origin supports the view that the first pale-skin European was born 6,000 years ago. In 2005, researchers linked the paleness of the modern European skin to a mutation in gene SLC 24A5. Its implication is immense if fully comprehended. The “whites” or Caucasians are not native to Europe as noted by Sokal. Haak et al (2006)

1.5 million years ago when human beings first began to evolve in Africa, they had Black skin. 100,000 years ago when anatomically modern humans evolved in Africa, they gave rise to the Black man and woman.

They lived in Africa as Black people, some of these people left Africa, 50,000 years ago as Black people, entered Europe as Black people, and they settled and lived in Europe as Black people until 6,000 years ago when the mutation that gave rise to the pale-skin arose.

Rogers posits that all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today’s Africans; their skin was black, and the intense sun killed off the progeny with any whiter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein (Rogers 2004:107).

Nina Jablonski claims that dark skin evolved pari passu with the loss of body hair and was the original state for the genus Homo.

Furthermore, it is generally accepted as argued by Rogers that the descendants of any people who migrate North from Africa will mutate to become white over time because the evolutionary constraint that keeps Africans’ skin black generation after generation decreases generally the further North a people migrates (Rogers 2004).

However the surprise is that this mutation only occurred after more than 45,000 years in which only Black-skinned African people lived in Europe as its original human aboriginals. It cannot be over-emphasized that it was only in the last 6,000 years that the pale-skin (aka whiteman) first appeared.

The mutation gene must have spread gradually (as often occurs with new mutation) from that time but it surely would have taken another two or three thousand years down the line before it would become the dominant European profile. That makes it just three thousand years ago.

It was only three thousand years ago that whiteman became the dominant type in an African-owned Europe! Before that it was Black-skinned African. For more than 48,000 years Black-skinned Africans would have been the only Europeans!!! Europe was discovered and mapped by Black skin Africans. Europe of yesterday, today and tomorrow will ever remain Africa’s heritage.
Osteological Evidence:

In 2006, Brace a leading authority in anthropology conducted osteological analysis on several skeletal remains dating from neolithic Europe.

According to Brace:

“Many human craniofacial dimensions are largely of neutral adaptive significance, and an analysis of their variation can serve as an indication of the extent to which any given population is genetically related to or differs from any other.

When 24 craniofacial measurements of a series of human populations are used to generate neighbor-joining dendrograms, it is no surprise that all modern European groups, ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East, show that they are closely related to each other.

The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe.

It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa.


The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic (i.e. Natufians with a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa) moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it.

C. Loring Brace: The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form; PNAS | January 3, 2006 | vol. 103 | no. 1 | 242-247

There are no ancient skeletons of the Caucasian type. The findings of Brace et al make it clear that there were no whites in ancient Europe. There were only Black Africans living there until the coming of the Europeans as noted by DuBois, Diop and Boule & Vallois.

Again another piece of incontrovertible scientific evidence that the Paleolithic Europeans were Blacks. The skeletal remains of these people as noted by Boule and Vallois recalled the tropical African type.

“So striking” writes Professor Elliot Smith, “is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population, both ancient and modern, of Egypt and East Africa, that the description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland. (The Ancient Egyptians, p. 58.)

Geneticist Peter Underhill refines the facts:
About 80 percent of Europeans arose from primitive hunters who arrived about 35,000 years ago, endured the long ice age and then expanded rapidly to dominate the continent, a new study shows.

Researchers analyzing the Y chromosome taken from 1,007 men from 25 different locations in Europe found a pattern that suggests four out of five of the men shared a common male ancestor about 40,000 years ago.

The basic pattern had some changes that apparently developed among people who once shared a common ancestor and then were isolated for many generations.

This scenario supports other studies about the Paleolithic European groups.

Those studies suggest that a primitive, stone-age human came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 35,000 years ago.

Their numbers were small and they lived by hunting animals and gathering plant food. They used crudely sharpened stones and fire.

“About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe.

The Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine.

“When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age refuges.

About 8,000 years ago a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life – agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration [African Y chromosome E3b and SouthWest Asian J].

Ogu Eji Ofo Annu
July 11, 2007

Spread the love

26 thoughts on “The First (Black) Europeans: The Original Africans Of Europe – By – Oguejiofo Annu”

  1. nothing can be based on evolution ,graftinfg is hidden cause it would sow higher inteligence then the europen an he alays hid who we wer but wore our crown we gave him , you may not see it in your history books but its their in codes,it hides grafting an try to tell all they come from monkeys apes from east i dont come from that nor do muurs miscalled negro colored black dark skin gets scaly or ashy like a fish out of water an we are born in 9 moths of water ,,,you tube the us niggr industry taj tarik bey

  2. i will go back into latin origin as proof again cause who were u before u could speak an we are the people who spoke latin first so who taught europe to be civilizzed the muurs an tok them out the dark ages ,study prince uriel bey an u will find when ur bloodline came to speak

  3. Dear Brother,

    In the tragic tumult of modern human relations, many have become fixated on skin color as a mark of human righteousness (dark skin) and of human vilification (light skin.) “Race” is a modern construct to which many people defer their intellects; many people use this imaginary and fantastical notion as a justification to cause harm to others. In order to dislodge ignorance on this topic from the human mind, I understand that we must speak directly to the limited understanding of those people whose minds are biased, and to address this topic by first deconstructing the myth. Eg: educate the world about the superior Sub-Saharan civilizations of previous centuries, the great intelligence of their societal structures, the unprecedented and far-reaching technologies that they derived, the great works they created, and the humanitarian theologies they espoused. This knowledge must be fed to ignorant minds in order to help them correct their inhumane and dangerous belief systems. However, let us refrain from judging any human’s rightness or worth based on skin color.
    You mention that the original inhabitants of Europe were black- very good, and that the “whiteman” did not appear until much later. Over time, skin color pigmentation lightened due to mutations. How then do you consider “whitemen” a different race? You are essentially saying that the descendants of Africans (children, great-great to the 100th power grandchildren) are a different people. In addition, it seems that one small set of genetic factors (those involved in skin color) changes a people’s “race.” This is quite superficial in both the literal and metaphorical sense. Let us ask, how many of the genes of European humans remained the same? The genes of The genes of African peoples have also mutated over the centuries, yet they retain their righteous superiority because skin tones have altered less dramatically than in parts of Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and the Americas? Well, many, many genes have mutated on the African continent as well; does this disqualify people in Africa from the inheritance of their ancestors and change them into a different “race?” Furthermore, European populations contain some of the original genetic markers of humanity, passed down from the first humans in Afica, while some African populations have lost these same markers.
    Why fixate on skin color to drive a wedge between the various groups in the human family? Europeans and Asians are the children of Africa, but oops, sorry, since their skin color has changed, they are now “whitement” and thus less than human? Will you disown your children because they have lighter skin than you? The best way to fight racism is to stop thinking like a racist: fixating on human skin color as a determinate of human worth is a MODERN idea and is essentially the definition of modern racism. Please step outside of that thought structure, because if we can’t do this, we are following in the footsteps of cruel human beings who have INVENTED the skin color dogma to convince other people that they are justified in taking advantage of their human sisters and brothers. Skin color is the intellectual provinance of the ignorant. We are better than that: we are human, with the attendant intellectual and spiritual powers to understand greater truths. It is better to speak in real terms: what specifically have various groups/ individuals done at various times in history, various places on the planet, and operating under what drives and belief systems? The truth does not fit nicely into a box, it might be difficult for many minds to understand, but neither does it paint expansive and imperfect generalizations onto large groups of people, thus polarizing the human family into “righteous” and “unrighteous” factions. And most importantly, the truth does not add fuel to the fire of racism through the extension of animosity and the division of the human family.
    With respect for your committed and excellent work to right the wrongs of history and to correct the wrongly recorded story of the human journey on this planet, I thank you for your time and consideration. Much good luck to you in the future. Blessings to you, blessings to your sacred human life. Namste’

  4. The truth is parts of the Bible are missing and parts have been purposely reworded. The birth of Noah who was fair-skinned with bright eyes and blonde hair is omitted because his father was frightened by his appearance. People have always come in a variety of shades in color and then we mixed and remixed which resulted in more shades.

    1. Where can I find these books? I know the torah, bible, Koran as always being mistranslated across languages and hand picking of which passages to keep or throw away. And I have heard of the albino theory and would love to get new information.

  5. Just wondering, and I am wondering if anyone ever had this idea. If there were no ancient human skeletal remains found with modern European traits (because not all whites are ethnically ‘Caucasian’), could that also point to another possibility of evolution or origins? Another theory could be they came from another ancestor and maybe a late arrival to the planet? Surely this is not a mainstream theory, but there is no evidence eliminating the possibility that I have heard. And in no way am I implying superiority over either one. Sure there are modern scientific studies showing how environment affect evolution thus affecting physical traits and DNA. Particularly I remember the one with a species of birds on the Galapagos Islands and the effects radiation poisoning had on wwII radiation victim and radiation experiments on Moroccan immigrant children in Israel. Has any one ever researched other possibilities without bias towards the mainstream theories.

Comments are closed.