In researching the genetic characteristics of Amerindians, I was struck by the fact that ONLY mtDNA results were available. This seemed strange, in that NOT only female skeletons have been found, and as we all know, Mothers are only half of the story.
Additionally; The relatively short chronological range of mtDNA as compared with Y-dna, and it’s susceptibility to oxidative damage, makes it’s choice as the defacto method of analysis, all the more strange.
MtDNA Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is the DNA located in organelles called mitochondria. Most other DNA present in eukaryotic organisms is found in the cell nucleus. Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA are thought to be of separate evolutionary origin, with the mtDNA being derived from the circular genomes of the bacteria that were engulfed by the early ancestors of today's eukaryotic cells. Unlike nuclear DNA, which is inherited from both parents and in which genes are rearranged in the process of recombination, there is usually no change in mtDNA from parent to offspring. Although mtDNA also recombines, it does so with copies of itself within the same mitochondrion. Because of this and because the mutation rate of animal mtDNA is higher than that of nuclear DNA, mtDNA is a powerful tool for tracking ancestry through females (matrilineage) and has been used in this role to track the ancestry of many species back hundreds of generations. mtDNA is particularly susceptible to reactive oxygen species generated by the respiratory chain due to its close proximity. Though mtDNA is packaged by proteins and harbors significant DNA repair capacity, these protective functions are less robust than those operating on nuclear DNA and therefore thought to contribute to enhanced susceptibility of mtDNA to oxidative damage. Data from the comparisons is used to construct a network of relationships among the sequences, which provides an estimate of the relationships among the individuals or species from which the mtDNAs were taken. This approach has limits that are imposed by the rate of mtDNA sequence change. In animals, the rapid rate of change makes mtDNA most useful for comparisons of individuals within species and for comparisons of species that are closely or moderately-closely related, among which the number of sequence differences can be easily counted. As the species become more distantly related, the number of sequence differences becomes very large; changes begin to accumulate on changes until an accurate count becomes impossible. Compare this to the precision of Y-dna.
Y-DNA The basic science: The yDNA test is used for testing males only. The Y-DNA test uses information from the y-chromosome, which is passed from father to son, essentially unchanged.
My suspicion that something was afoot was confirmed by this revelation:
Unexpected Patterns of Mitochondrial DNA Variation Among Native Americans From the Southeastern United States Deborah A. (Weiss) Bolnick1* and David Glenn Smith1,2
Recent admixture with other non-Muskogeanspeaking populations has probably also occurred. Today, Muskogean-speaking populations in Oklahoma live near Osage (Siouan), Delaware (Algonquian), and Shawnee (Algonquian) populations. Mitochondrial DNA from these three populations has not been well-studied, but the Delaware and Shawnee sequences included in our analysis do not provide any evidence of admixture with Muskogean speakers. Such recent admixture is also likely to have been acknowledged and is unlikely to have occurred at sufficient levels to generate such dramatic differences in haplogroup frequencies. Lastly, European or African admixture cannot account for the divergent Muskogean haplogroup frequencies since no European or African haplogroups were identified in the 66 Muskogeans we studied, and any previously studied Muskoke or Seminole individuals with European or African haplogroups were excluded from all analyses.
This revelation, of course makes it clear that there is an ongoing conspiracy to limit the scope of Amerindian research to people of Beringa/Asian origins – consciously and completely removing non-Asian populations from the discussion.
A common quote is: mtDNA Haplogroup (*) is believed to have arisen in Asia some 60,000 years before present.
But as we all know; or should know – Modern Man originated in Africa, and the ONLY way to trace his journey to Asia, and the descendants that he spawned IN Asia is with Y-DNA. We also know from “less racist scientist” that The FIRST Americans (the Palo-Americans) were Australians and Polynesians. Additionally we know that the second migration out of Africa 55,000 ya, populated China and all of Asia with Blacks. And as we all know, Modern Man existed in Africa and even Asia long before these Asians even began to think about entering the Americas. These people ALREADY had a genetic history: The use of mtDNA is of course meant to obscure this fact
However, even thought Blacks and their DNA has been completely frozen out of the discussion; surprise, surprise – some White DNA has been allowed to surface.
mtDNA Haplogroup X: An Ancient Link between Europe/Western Asia and North America?" The American Society of Human Genetics . "On the basis of comprehensive RFLP analysis, it has been inferred that 97% of Native American mtDNAs belong to one of four major founding mtDNA lineages, designated haplogroups "A""D." It has been proposed that a fifth mtDNA haplogroup (haplogroup X) represents a minor founding lineage in Native Americans. Unlike haplogroups AD, haplogroup X is also found at low frequencies in modern European populations. To investigate the origins, diversity, and continental relationships of this haplogroup, we performed mtDNA high-resolution RFLP and complete control region (CR) sequence analysis on 22 putative Native American haplogroup X and 14 putative European haplogroup X mtDNAs. The results identified a consensus haplogroup X motif that characterizes our European and Native American samples. Among Native Americans, haplogroup X appears to be essentially restricted to northern Amerindian groups, including the Ojibwa, the Nuu-Chah-Nulth, the Sioux, and the Yakima, although we also observed this haplogroup in the Na-Denespeaking Navajo. Median network analysis indicated that European and Native American haplogroup X mtDNAs, although distinct, nevertheless are distantly related to each other. Time estimates for the arrival of X in North America are 12,000-36,000 years ago, depending on the number of assumed founders, thus supporting the conclusion that the peoples harboring haplogroup X were among the original founders of Native American populations. To date, haplogroup X has not been unambiguously identified in Asia, raising the possibility that some Native American founders were of Caucasian ancestry.
Summary: The above makes it clear and compelling, that the old insecurities of White people, and White “wanna-bees” still exists and are in full operation. Since our purpose here is to discover and discuss TRUTHFUL information. I respectfully request that anyone wishing to contribute to this discussion, refrain from using mtDNA data. As has been demonstrated, it is mostly used as a tool for the vile and insecure racist. Considering the wealth of artefactual and other data, the loss of suspect mtDNA data should pose no problem. Naturally - if non-racist DNA material becomes available, it of course should be used.
Response to Republicans in the U.S. – These are the REAL Americans.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^African is used euphemistically to say Black, just as European is euphemistically used to say White (incorrectly so; it should be west Asian). However, the old saying "Wherever you go, there you are" holds true. Black people who left Asia and went across the Bering straits to America, were still Black when they got there. Black people who left Australia and went to America, were still Black when they got there. Black people who left the Polynesian Islands and went to America, were still Black when they got there. Black people in Africa who were enslaved and taken to America by force, were still Black when they got there.
If the argument is that the Blacks in Beringa mixed with Mongols and Whites, then say that. If the argument is that the Blacks from Beringa mixed with Mongols and Whites in America, then say that: (both scenarios are perfectly plausible and supportable). The same cannot be said for the Blacks who came from Australia and Polynesia - there were no Mongols and Whites to mix with before they came to America.
However, what cannot be supported, is the vile racist contrivance denying Blacks their rightful place as the founders and progenitors of America. This is old racism with a new face. Even as America considers electing a Black (sort of) as President; Americas scientific and academic communities are still engaged in the same old racist practices that they were hundreds of years ago. Decent people should not defend them, they should condemn them - strongly.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Found any anthropological information yet, so I can use more of your own sources to debunk you?
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^^^So A-hole - you're saying that I need a White man to tell me what I see??? Are you sure you're a PR and not one of those programed Negroes - oh wait Black PRs are programed Negroes - sorry I forgot.
It really doesn't matter what you see or want to see, what you don't realize, or simply don't want to realize, is Asians have broad features just the same you're considering to be exclusively African. You're stereotyping Asians to where they have to look a certain way(Mongoloid), just like Euro-centrists stereotype Africans(Negroid). Plain and simple.
As we can see you're another Artful Dodger....
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^^^Since you understand it so well; then please summorize your position, so that I will know exactly what it is that I am to argue against. You are all over the place, which makes it hard to comprehend what your position is.
You're simply just to slow to understand my position(which is the position amongst modern mainstream scienctists), I get it. I'll help you out though.
Please tell me how the hell do you call OOA Oceanics, African when you find them in Europe, China and the Americas?
You do understand that the world was populated over 60kya by Africans walking OOA, in which their lineages became non African, and became the founder lineages for all non Africans. Of course everyone comes from Africa, original populations resembled OOA migrants for tens of thousands of years before they morphologically changed into their present day phenotype, which is why you don't find cold adapted skeletons in Europe until after the Mesolithic, this is pretty much what it is around the world. It was not multiple migrations OOA everytime they find Africans around the ancient world. Australians are still black but are not African, neither are the other populations found throughout the ancient world sorry. The population in which does possess post OOA lineages are Europeans, they admit this admixture into their own population, but yet as I said you think they're denying lineages into another population they(Europeans) have nothing to do with?
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: ^^^^There was no influence or borrowing of any kind, these people came from Asia, whatever they learned, comes from their journey from Africa through Asia into the Americas.
quote:My source: "The traditional path across the Bering Strait is still the most plausible explanation for the entry of this non-Mongoloid population into the New World, if we assume that it was present in Northern Asia at the end of the Pleistocene." And indeed, Japan's aborigines, of whom a few still live in Hokkaido and on the Kurile Islands, display some Australian traits, such as round eye sockets and abundant body hair.
quote: From Mikes own source: Lahr (1995) has reached a conclusion similar to ours when studying the cranial morphology of modern Fuegians. She realized that the morphology of modern Indians of Tierra del Fuego could not be described as typical Mongoloid as well. Since she detected a close association between historic ****Fuegians and Polynesians**** she opted to interpret the cranial morphology of the former as generalized Mongoloid, at best. In her opinion this generalized Mongoloid morphology could be explained as a retention of characteristics of the first inhabitants of the Americas.
quote: Froms Mikes own source: As to the similarities with Africans, the best way to explain it in terms of historical connections, is to assume that the Asian ancestral population that gave rise to the Australians and to the first Americans had its ultimate origins in the African continent, as it is in fact the case with all modern humans (Stringer and Andrews, 1988; Stringer and McKie, 1996; Lahr, 1994, 1996), ***but which retained a very generalized morphology.***In accordance with Lahr (1996), the Australians are in fact the contemporary aboriginal population that retained the most primitive morphology when compared to the first modern humans. As she stressed "Groups like [...] Australo-Melanesians are all examples of relatively early diversifications without great amounts of gene flow from other groups..." (Lahr, 1996, p.335).
^^^^^As we can see from the above, what I have been saying, and my conclusions are supported by anthropology archaeology and genetics. Mikes theory is debunked by his own citations that he doesn't understand.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^You are an idiot with an agenda - what could be worst - a double negative. You are not welcome here and will not be responded to.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:^^^You are an idiot with an agenda - what could be worst - a double negative. You are not welcome here and will not be responded to.
^^^Excuses excuses, I know what could be **worse** which is you lying and acting like a coward shying away in the face of confrontation.
You might want to take your tail from between your legs.
Btw...only one with an agenda is you, Clyde, Marc etc....
Pray tell, what about my post fits an agenda? I used your own sources against your imbecilic phony ***. Don't be upset now. You asked me a question I answered, it doesn't seem as if you have a response now, do you? No surprise!!
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Unlike Black, White, and Mongol, which are actual races. Amerindian is NOT a race; it is a subset which contains elements of all of the races. In the Americas, the ONLY evidence (so far found) of pure racial types, is of the Black race.
Logically then, everyone else is a mixture of something. Future posts to this thread will try to shed light on the mixtures that made up the ancient Amerindian populations of America.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unlike Black, White, and Mongol, which are actual races.
Pray do tell, how is a color black, a color white, and an area in Asia, are races? Can you please explain this?
quote: Amerindian is NOT a race; it is a subset which contains elements of all of the races.
Can you prove this? Where is your genetic data saying Native Americans are a mixture of all "races"? N.A.'s come from Asia.
quote: In the Americas, the ONLY evidence (so far found) of pure racial types, is of the Black race.
First there are no "Races" if there are, how come you still haven't proven so?
Can you prove the validity of this statement? What black population in the Americas are pure? What constitutes pure?
quote: Logically then, everyone else is a mixture of something.
Stop making assumptions, what would constitute your theory, is actual genetic data and anthropological data, not eyeball anthropology putting a pigeon hold on these Native Americans like racist white anthropologists say they have to look "Mongoloid", so you agree with said white scientists when they stereotype about Asians, but not Africans right?
quote: Future posts to this thread will try to shed light on the mixtures that made up the ancient Amerindian populations of America.
You've been falsely trying to shed light on a situation you have no idea about. I suggest you stop. All of your information comes from Marc and Clyde, who are not the sharpest tools in the shed, actually very dull indeed.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Unlike Black, White, and Mongol, which are actual races. Amerindian is NOT a race
Yes, they are a sub-race of the Mongolid race.
There is no "Mongoloid race". There is a place called Mongolia though. Native Americans don't come from Mongolia, neither do all the other Asians falsely classified under this category.
Native Americans do come from Asia though.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Note: The Pericues and the California Indians are the same people.
At the British Association for the Advancement of Science's Festival of Science 2004, geoarcheologist Silvia Gonzalez presented evidence that the Pericues, an extinct Baja California tribe, are genetically "closer to the ancient populations of southern Asia, Australia, and the South Pacific Rim" than to the northern Asian populations that other Native Americans have been thought to have come from. Gonzalez also suggested that the two oldest known Americans (Kennewick Man and Peñon Woman) might have been from a similar background.
A Pericu skull. Unlike the brachycephalic (short and broad) skulls of modern Amerind populations, the Pericu skulls were highly dolichocaphalic (long and thin), raising the possibility that they were a population not related to their Amerind neighbours.
Here's a press release from the Natural Environment Research Council, which sponsored the research, and a Discovery Channel report, which quotes Gonzalez as follows:
"... it is difficult to trace their point of origin as people 10,000 or 20,000 years ago did not look like their modern counterparts in many parts of the world, including Africa, Europe, and China.
"It is likely that southeast Asia 20,000 years ago was inhabited by people who more closely resembled present-day Polynesians or Australian aborigines so this could indeed be a source for the first Americans. They could have taken a coastal route to get there around the North Pacific Rim — it seems unlikely that they came directly across the Pacific."
For those who doubt the racist nature of White academia. Take note of how Whites depicted these Black people.
Discovery article, Claire Bowern:
DNA analysis of skulls found in Baja California that belonged to an extinct tribe called the Pericues reveal that the Pericues likely were not related to Native Americans and that they probably predated Native Americans in settling the Americas, according to an announcement Monday.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
A few comments on the report that DNA evidence suggests that the Pericú, an extinct tribe of Baja California, are more closely related to "the ancient populations of southern Asia, Australia, and the South Pacific Rim" than to other Native Americans and peoples of the North Pacific Rim.
It is true that this proposal will likely provoke criticism from some Native Americans. Some groups believe that they were created where they are now and consider it offensive to suggest otherwise, and some are concerned that any suggestion that they are themselves immigrants will undermine their claim to their territory. Of course, such groups aren't keen on the Beringian theory either, since it denies that they originated in situ. The idea that there was an earlier migration is worse, though, since it makes them not only immigrants but latecomers. However, there is considerable diversity both of tradition and opinion. Many tribes have no tradition of being created where they are now or even have traditions of migration. And many recognize that prior possession is a perfectly adequate basis for their claims to their territory and that it doesn't matter whether they have been there since the creation.
There is actually another interpretation that should be acceptable to Native Americans who consider themselves autochthonous. They could say that whereas they have always been here, the Pericú were merely the earliest immigrants into the Americas. After all, the DNA evidence itself does not establish that the Pericú were in the Americas before them.
The argument by Johanna Nichols to which Mark referred is based on a survey of typological features of languages, that is, features like "the verb follows its object" or "distinguishes between first person inclusive and exclusive". Such features are not traditionally considered probative of genetic affiliation because there are only a few possibilities, so the probability of two languages sharing them is rather high. Nichols argues that by choosing the features one uses carefully and looking at complexes of features rather than isolated features one can obtain evidence for a historical relationship between languages. She concedes that it isn't possible by this method to distinguish between common descent and diffusion, but suggests that that isn't a fatal flaw, because it is interesting to know who has been in touch with whom, even if we can't tell what the nature of the relationship was. According to Nichols, languages along the Pacific Rim share a number of features that suggest a historical relationship among the languages. This is an interesting idea, but it isn't clear whether or not it really works. Questions have been raised both regarding the validity of the method in general and regarding particular features.
The idea that the Pericú represent an earlier, more southerly migration by boat and/or along the coast to the Americas is quite plausible. For one thing, all of the very early humans found in the Americas seem more closely to resemble Austronesians and Ainu than later American Indians; adistinct migration would explain this. Secondly, it is now I believe conclusively established that the Clovis culture was not the first in the Americas, but it is Clovis that most plausibly reflects the Beringian migration So the pre-Clovis peoples presumably reflect another migration. Thirdly, if everybody came via Beringia, we would expect to find a progression of sites from North to South. We don't. Indeed, there are very early sites, e.g. Monte Verde, in South America. This argument isn't as conclusive as it might be because we don't have an awful lot of early sites, and we can't date them with great precision, so if there were a progression but the movement were rapid we might not be able to resolve it. But if it is right that we don't see the progression we ought to, we have another fact that would be explained by one or ore arrivals on the Pacific coast. Fourth, there is tons of evidence that itis possible to travel by fairly primitive boats between Asia and the Pacific Coast. In addition to planned voyages, there could have been many cases of people being swept to the Americas by storms.
The lack of old sites along the Pacific Coast is not a counterargument to this hypothesis because most of what would have been the coast at the time was submerged at the end of the last ice age. Some archaeologists think that there may be a lot of sites underwater. These sites are presumably much more difficult to discover than, say, Bronze Age sites - it's hard to observe a lithic scatter on the ocean floor.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
The piece on the Pericu above is very important in that it demonstrates two things.
1) That the Mississippi Indians were indeed Black, and that consequently, Amerindian tribes (such as the Seminoles) who are known to be descendants of the Mississippi, also have a Black linage.
2) How the pernicious racism of White people, invades and pollutes everyone that they come in contact with.
These “New” White Seminoles (the result of crossbreeding with White people) – together with other Whites, of course needed a NEW history. So they created the myth that the Black nature of post-Columbian Seminoles was the result of admixture between Seminoles and Maroons and Black slaves. Creating a “New” history to suit their needs, is of course NOT new to White people – the same was done in Europe and the Middle East and North Africa. To show their unmitigated Gall, they even tried it in Egypt - a country which had ancient artifacts which proved their lies - I guess they were saying: "Who you gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes. Oh yes - they have lots of gall!
Note how these modern “White” Seminoles, treat their ancestral fathers.
The "red-faced" White guy on the right is Seminole tribe Chief James Billie.
By Andrew Metz
Wewoka, Okla. -- Kenneth Chambers, chief of the Seminole Nation, is absolutely sure of the truth of the matter. "There is no black Seminole," he expostulated on a recent day, rising from his chair to drive the point home like a preacher warning of hell and damnation.
In this ink spot of an Indian town, however, not far from the tribe's headquarters on the Oklahoma prairie, the faces of Wewoka present a conflicting impression.
"My folks is Indian," said Roosevelt Davis, a man as dark as any of African descent. Walking through the long leaf pines he planted on land that has been his family's for almost 100 years, he put his hand on his chest and said simply, "I'm Seminole."
After two centuries of coexistence that has rarely made most history books, a chasm has opened between the descendants of the Seminole people, Indians and escaped slaves who banded together in Florida against the white onslaught and were eventually deposited here along what became known as the Trail of Tears.
Though history and intermingling made cousins of the two groups, time and money and the modern experiences of being black or Indian or both have chewed away at all they shared in common, leaving the ligaments of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma exposed and aching.
The blacks, still known around here as Freedmen, have been excluded from millions of dollars awarded to the Seminole in the early 1990s for the seizure of their land in Florida a century earlier. And three years ago they were stripped of their Seminole status altogether through the imposition of an ancestral blood standard for membership that few could prove.
This is how the Seminole USED to look, before they became “White”
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Headlines from heads
Note: The Pericues and the California Indians are the same people.
At the British Association for the Advancement of Science's Festival of Science 2004, geoarcheologist Silvia Gonzalez presented evidence that the Pericues, an extinct Baja California tribe, are genetically "closer to the ancient populations of southern Asia, Australia, and the South Pacific Rim" than to the northern Asian populations that other Native Americans have been thought to have come from. Gonzalez also suggested that the two oldest known Americans (Kennewick Man and Peñon Woman) might have been from a similar background.
A Pericu skull. Unlike the brachycephalic (short and broad) skulls of modern Amerind populations, the Pericu skulls were highly dolichocaphalic (long and thin), raising the possibility that they were a population not related to their Amerind neighbours.
Here's a press release from the Natural Environment Research Council, which sponsored the research, and a Discovery Channel report, which quotes Gonzalez as follows:
"... it is difficult to trace their point of origin as people 10,000 or 20,000 years ago did not look like their modern counterparts in many parts of the world, including Africa, Europe, and China.
"It is likely that southeast Asia 20,000 years ago was inhabited by people who more closely resembled present-day Polynesians or Australian aborigines so this could indeed be a source for the first Americans. They could have taken a coastal route to get there around the North Pacific Rim — it seems unlikely that they came directly across the Pacific."
For those who doubt the racist nature of White academia. Take note of how Whites depicted these Black people.
Discovery article, Claire Bowern:
DNA analysis of skulls found in Baja California that belonged to an extinct tribe called the Pericues reveal that the Pericues likely were not related to Native Americans and that they probably predated Native Americans in settling the Americas, according to an announcement Monday.
First off, the black Indians of Southern California and the South West and the rest of the Americas were not extinct PRIOR to the arrival of the Europeans. They became extinct AFTER and this is only going back about 150 years. Many photos of native Americans attest to the fact that there were MANY dark skinned native Americans who had NO mixture with African slaves. That is nonsense. The aboriginal native Americans were like the aboriginal populations everywhere else on the planet, BLACK. It is that simple. Later waves of migrations had lighter complexions but this is no different than what happened everywhere else as dark populations adapted to cold environments. The aboriginal populations of the Americas is no different than the Aboriginal populations of Asia. They were both more like the aboriginal people of New Guinea and Australia. That is all that is being confirmed by more recent research.
We have been over this many many times in many threads.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
------------------------------- There is no "Mongoloid race". There is a place called Mongolia though. Native Americans don't come from Mongolia, neither do all the other Asians falsely classified under this category. -------------------------------
LOL! He's come out against the carlton coon style racial classification only after I called him out on it in a previous thread.
ha ha ha heeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Knowledgeiskey718 wrote:
------------------------------- There is no "Mongoloid race". There is a place called Mongolia though. Native Americans don't come from Mongolia, neither do all the other Asians falsely classified under this category. -------------------------------
LOL! He's come out against the carlton coon style racial classification only after I called him out on it in a previous thread.
ha ha ha heeeeeeeeeeeeeee
They are Asian, i forgot about that, yes, they come from asia, so they are an asian people, not african.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
The Pericu's first known encounter with the advancing Spanish took place when Hernan Cortez visited and named the area around La Paz - today the capital of the Mexican state of Baja California Sur. Earlier encounters with explorers and traders are likely but have not been recorded. During the following centuries, mostly missionaries and perhaps a few traders took an interest in the primitive, materially poor and remote Pericu and the Guaycura.
As has happened so many times before and after, the attentions of outsiders (be they missionaries, bureaucrats or traders) proved lethal to the objects of their attention. By the end of the 18th century the Pericu had vanished, mostly despatched by the new diseases introduced by outsiders. The neighbouring Guyacura followed them into oblivion sometime during the 19th century.
Note: Because the "California Indians proper" are grouped with California Indians in general, I have not been able to find accurate information on when they became extinct.
JOKE OF THE DAY! The White guy on the right is a chief of the Osage, the White woman with him is a member of the tribe. THESE are the people denying rights to Black Indians. If it wasn't so sick, it would be funny!
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: <<<<<<<<<<<<Blind leading the Blind>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry, Amerindians aren't african, they are asian, sorry, your black movement won't take over the world.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many members of this forum have been brainwashed by revisionist history which “whites out” the ancient original Black inhabitants in the Americas. A de Quatrefages in L ‘Etudes des Races Humaines (1889) noted how the Atlantic currents probably carried naby Africans to the Americas. He observed:
quote:
One should seek to explain it, how [b]Balboa could have found an isolated Negro tribe in the midst of the indigenous population of the Darien Isthmus [Panama]; how the island of Saint Vincent had black Caribbeans before the importation of the first Negroes to the Antilles; how the Yamassis of Florida and the Charuas had the same colony; how black men coming from the east could have reached the Indies as it was reported in the Peruvian traditions. (pp.406-407)
posted
Anthropology supports the presence of Blacks in America when Columbus arrived in the region.Quatrefages in The Human Species , include the Choco, Manabis, Yaruras, Guarani, Charruas, Othomi (Otomi), Yamassi, Tzendal/Chontal, the Mandinga(a member of the Cunan group of Mexico), the Blacks of Quareca and numerous tribes along the Orinoco river in Venezuela and the Isthmus of Darien; not to mention the Black tribes of the United States southwest including a tribe reported by Cabeza de Vaca called Mandicas (< Mandinka).
The Otomi and Caribe spoke a Manding language. The major center for the Manding was Panama. The major Amerindian group in this area was the Cunan group.
Mike’s posting of the pictures below support the work of Quatrefages.
Central America:
South America:
It is interesting that in every area Quatrefages said Negores formerly existed we see artifacts dating hundreds of years support his report.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Many members of this forum have been brainwashed by revisionist history which “whites out” the ancient original Black inhabitants in the Americas. A de Quatrefages in L ‘Etudes des Races Humaines (1889) noted how the Atlantic currents probably carried naby Africans to the Americas. He observed:
quote:
One should seek to explain it, how [b]Balboa could have found an isolated Negro tribe in the midst of the indigenous population of the Darien Isthmus [Panama]; how the island of Saint Vincent had black Caribbeans before the importation of the first Negroes to the Antilles; how the Yamassis of Florida and the Charuas had the same colony; how black men coming from the east could have reached the Indies as it was reported in the Peruvian traditions. (pp.406-407)
These Indians came from Africa, not Asia.
.
Those are blacks, not indians.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Many members of this forum have been brainwashed by revisionist history which “whites out” the ancient original Black inhabitants in the Americas. A de Quatrefages in L ‘Etudes des Races Humaines (1889) noted how the Atlantic currents probably carried naby Africans to the Americas. He observed:
quote:
One should seek to explain it, how [b]Balboa could have found an isolated Negro tribe in the midst of the indigenous population of the Darien Isthmus [Panama]; how the island of Saint Vincent had black Caribbeans before the importation of the first Negroes to the Antilles; how the Yamassis of Florida and the Charuas had the same colony; how black men coming from the east could have reached the Indies as it was reported in the Peruvian traditions. (pp.406-407)
These Indians came from Africa, not Asia.
.
Those are blacks, not indians.
They are Americans. They are both Black and Indian, because Indian is the name Europeans gave to the natives of America. They were probably descendants of the first Black who settled America 30kya.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Pericu continued:
The piece on the Pericu above is very important in that it demonstrates two things.
1) That the Mississippi Indians were indeed Black, and that consequently, Amerindian tribes (such as the Seminoles) who are known to be descendants of the Mississippi, also have a Black linage.
2) How the pernicious racism of White people, invades and pollutes everyone that they come in contact with.
These “New” White Seminoles (the result of crossbreeding with White people) – together with other Whites, of course needed a NEW history. So they created the myth that the Black nature of post-Columbian Seminoles was the result of admixture between Seminoles and Maroons and Black slaves. Creating a “New” history to suit their needs, is of course NOT new to White people – the same was done in Europe and the Middle East and North Africa. To show their unmitigated Gall, they even tried it in Egypt - a country which had ancient artifacts which proved their lies - I guess they were saying: "Who you gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes. Oh yes - they have lots of gall!
Note how these modern “White” Seminoles, treat their ancestral fathers.
The "red-faced" White guy on the right is Seminole tribe Chief James Billie.
By Andrew Metz
Wewoka, Okla. -- Kenneth Chambers, chief of the Seminole Nation, is absolutely sure of the truth of the matter. "There is no black Seminole," he expostulated on a recent day, rising from his chair to drive the point home like a preacher warning of hell and damnation.
In this ink spot of an Indian town, however, not far from the tribe's headquarters on the Oklahoma prairie, the faces of Wewoka present a conflicting impression.
"My folks is Indian," said Roosevelt Davis, a man as dark as any of African descent. Walking through the long leaf pines he planted on land that has been his family's for almost 100 years, he put his hand on his chest and said simply, "I'm Seminole."
After two centuries of coexistence that has rarely made most history books, a chasm has opened between the descendants of the Seminole people, Indians and escaped slaves who banded together in Florida against the white onslaught and were eventually deposited here along what became known as the Trail of Tears.
Though history and intermingling made cousins of the two groups, time and money and the modern experiences of being black or Indian or both have chewed away at all they shared in common, leaving the ligaments of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma exposed and aching.
The blacks, still known around here as Freedmen, have been excluded from millions of dollars awarded to the Seminole in the early 1990s for the seizure of their land in Florida a century earlier. And three years ago they were stripped of their Seminole status altogether through the imposition of an ancestral blood standard for membership that few could prove.
This is how the Seminole USED to look, before they became “White”
(Re-posted to get back picture!)
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: They are Americans. They are both Black and Indian, because Indian is the name Europeans gave to the natives of America. They were probably descendants of the first Black who settled America 30kya
Therefore, they aren't native Americans, but Africans, now you are using european concepts because they suit you, isn't it?
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Pericu continued:
The piece on the Pericu above is very important in that it demonstrates two things.
1) That the Mississippi Indians were indeed Black, and that consequently, Amerindian tribes (such as the Seminoles) who are known to be descendants of the Mississippi, also have a Black linage.
2) How the pernicious racism of White people, invades and pollutes everyone that they come in contact with.
These “New” White Seminoles (the result of crossbreeding with White people) – together with other Whites, of course needed a NEW history. So they created the myth that the Black nature of post-Columbian Seminoles was the result of admixture between Seminoles and Maroons and Black slaves. Creating a “New” history to suit their needs, is of course NOT new to White people – the same was done in Europe and the Middle East and North Africa. To show their unmitigated Gall, they even tried it in Egypt - a country which had ancient artifacts which proved their lies - I guess they were saying: "Who you gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes. Oh yes - they have lots of gall!
Note how these modern “White” Seminoles, treat their ancestral fathers.
The "red-faced" White guy on the right is Seminole tribe Chief James Billie.
By Andrew Metz
Wewoka, Okla. -- Kenneth Chambers, chief of the Seminole Nation, is absolutely sure of the truth of the matter. "There is no black Seminole," he expostulated on a recent day, rising from his chair to drive the point home like a preacher warning of hell and damnation.
In this ink spot of an Indian town, however, not far from the tribe's headquarters on the Oklahoma prairie, the faces of Wewoka present a conflicting impression.
"My folks is Indian," said Roosevelt Davis, a man as dark as any of African descent. Walking through the long leaf pines he planted on land that has been his family's for almost 100 years, he put his hand on his chest and said simply, "I'm Seminole."
After two centuries of coexistence that has rarely made most history books, a chasm has opened between the descendants of the Seminole people, Indians and escaped slaves who banded together in Florida against the white onslaught and were eventually deposited here along what became known as the Trail of Tears.
Though history and intermingling made cousins of the two groups, time and money and the modern experiences of being black or Indian or both have chewed away at all they shared in common, leaving the ligaments of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma exposed and aching.
The blacks, still known around here as Freedmen, have been excluded from millions of dollars awarded to the Seminole in the early 1990s for the seizure of their land in Florida a century earlier. And three years ago they were stripped of their Seminole status altogether through the imposition of an ancestral blood standard for membership that few could prove.
This is how the Seminole USED to look, before they became “White”
Irrelevant to the topic.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: They are Americans. They are both Black and Indian, because Indian is the name Europeans gave to the natives of America. They were probably descendants of the first Black who settled America 30kya
Therefore, they aren't native Americans, but Africans, now you are using european concepts because they suit you, isn't it?
No I am using European terms used to describe the people of America. Remember originally these term was applied to the people of India. If you which I will call them African Americans. Since they are native Americans I must describe them as Indian.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde - I would greatly appreciate it if you would NOT respond to the scurrilous elements on this thread. As you can see, it just results in the thread becoming cluttered with uneducated and ignorant rantings, typical of that sort.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Pericu continued:
The piece on the Pericu above is very important in that it demonstrates two things.
1) That the Mississippi Indians were indeed Black, and that consequently, Amerindian tribes (such as the Seminoles) who are known to be descendants of the Mississippi, also have a Black linage.
2) How the pernicious racism of White people, invades and pollutes everyone that they come in contact with.
These “New” White Seminoles (the result of crossbreeding with White people) – together with other Whites, of course needed a NEW history. So they created the myth that the Black nature of post-Columbian Seminoles was the result of admixture between Seminoles and Maroons and Black slaves. Creating a “New” history to suit their needs, is of course NOT new to White people – the same was done in Europe and the Middle East and North Africa. To show their unmitigated Gall, they even tried it in Egypt - a country which had ancient artifacts which proved their lies - I guess they were saying: "Who you gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes. Oh yes - they have lots of gall!
Note how these modern “White” Seminoles, treat their ancestral fathers.
The "red-faced" White guy on the right is Seminole tribe Chief James Billie.
By Andrew Metz
Wewoka, Okla. -- Kenneth Chambers, chief of the Seminole Nation, is absolutely sure of the truth of the matter. "There is no black Seminole," he expostulated on a recent day, rising from his chair to drive the point home like a preacher warning of hell and damnation.
In this ink spot of an Indian town, however, not far from the tribe's headquarters on the Oklahoma prairie, the faces of Wewoka present a conflicting impression.
"My folks is Indian," said Roosevelt Davis, a man as dark as any of African descent. Walking through the long leaf pines he planted on land that has been his family's for almost 100 years, he put his hand on his chest and said simply, "I'm Seminole."
After two centuries of coexistence that has rarely made most history books, a chasm has opened between the descendants of the Seminole people, Indians and escaped slaves who banded together in Florida against the white onslaught and were eventually deposited here along what became known as the Trail of Tears.
Though history and intermingling made cousins of the two groups, time and money and the modern experiences of being black or Indian or both have chewed away at all they shared in common, leaving the ligaments of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma exposed and aching.
The blacks, still known around here as Freedmen, have been excluded from millions of dollars awarded to the Seminole in the early 1990s for the seizure of their land in Florida a century earlier. And three years ago they were stripped of their Seminole status altogether through the imposition of an ancestral blood standard for membership that few could prove.
This is how the Seminole USED to look, before they became “White”
Irrelevant to the topic.
This is important in relation to the topic. It shows how the paleo-Indians have been erased from history and confirmation of the unbiased history of America written by anthropologists like Quatrefages.
You are a hypocrite. On the one hand you acknowledge that the popular view of the Americans is that they were Asians. Now we present evidence there were also Black/African Indians you dispute this view even though it is supported by eyewitnesses and archaeology.
Why are you attempting to steal the history of the Black Indians, and give it to the Asian Indians?
Due to the long history of Black/African Indians, many Asian Indians worshipped these Blacks as Gods. Two of the principal Black Gods was Quetzacoatl and Ekchuah.
posted
Clyde - Being a mid-westerner, you do not understand that you are dealing with Puerto Ricans - Perhaps the most racially confused people on the planet. They don't want to be Black, but they are not accepted as White, so many have taken to a "SUPPOSED" Taino Indian heritage. The nonsense that you are experiencing, is part of their search for an identity. It's best to leave them be.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Clyde - Being a mid-westerner, you do not understand that you are dealing with Puerto Ricans - Perhaps the most racially confused people on the planet. They don't want to be Black, but they are not accepted as White, so many have taken to a "SUPPOSED" Taino Indian heritage. The nonsense that you are experiencing, is part of their search for an identity. It's best to leave them be.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: They are Americans. They are both Black and Indian, because Indian is the name Europeans gave to the natives of America. They were probably descendants of the first Black who settled America 30kya
Therefore, they aren't native Americans, but Africans, now you are using european concepts because they suit you, isn't it?
No I am using European terms used to describe the people of America. Remember originally these term was applied to the people of India. If you which I will call them African Americans. Since they are native Americans I must describe them as Indian.
Yes, as Native Americans,the first people who inhabited North America, before Africans came from the east.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The African Indians founded writing among the Maya. We know that the Olmec introduced writing to the Americas but many people don't know that most epigraphers believe that it was the Chontal who invented Maya hieroglyphics.
The Chontal language is a member of the Cho’lan group. Many epigraphers consider the Mayan hieroglyphic writing to have been originally written in this language.
quote: The Ch'olan sub-group of Mayan languages has three modern descendants: Ch'orti', Ch'ontal, and Ch'ol. Two extinct Mayan languages referred to above also belong to this sub-group: Ch'olti' and Acalan. There is some debate over how all these languages are to be classified internally. The traditional model (see for example Kaufman and Norman 1984: 81) has a two-branch classification with Acalan and its modern-day descendent Chontal comprising, along with Ch'ol, the 'Western Ch'olan' branch, and Ch'olti' and Ch'orti' as the two sub-branches of 'Eastern Ch'olan', as shown below.
From the late 1970s epigraphers and linguists began to work together to analyse the language(s) represented in the Maya hieroglyphs. One of the first of these collaborations was a 1979 conference held at the State University of New York in Albany (Justeson and Campbell, eds. 1984). During the conference both epigraphers and linguists suggested that the inscriptions recorded a form of Cholan (now spelled Ch'olan) and Yucatecan (now spelled Yukatekan) languages. Since the Albany conference researchers have unravelled many linguistic issues concerning the language(s) recorded in Maya hieroglyphic texts. Among these the most important (and hotly debated) concern the phonology (the sound system) and morphology (word formation) of the language(s), and which of the Ch'olan and Yukatekan languages were the language(s) involved in the inscriptions.
This explains the numerous Mayan images of African, as opposed to Asian Mayan Kings posted by Marc since as noted by Quatrefages the Chantal were Black/Negro I.
II.
III. Missing as maximum 8 images can be sent in any post. From Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico is the 3rd King. His name K'inich Janaab' Pakal-II, 742-746 AD.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII. Missing as maximum 8 images can be sent in any post.
XI.
X Missing as maximum 8 images can be sent in any post.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The African Indians founded writing among the Maya. We know that the Olmec introduced writing to the Americas but many people don't know that most epigraphers believe that it was the Chontal who invented Maya hieroglyphics.
The Chontal language is a member of the Cho’lan group. Many epigraphers consider the Mayan hieroglyphic writing to have been originally written in this language.
quote: The Ch'olan sub-group of Mayan languages has three modern descendants: Ch'orti', Ch'ontal, and Ch'ol. Two extinct Mayan languages referred to above also belong to this sub-group: Ch'olti' and Acalan. There is some debate over how all these languages are to be classified internally. The traditional model (see for example Kaufman and Norman 1984: 81) has a two-branch classification with Acalan and its modern-day descendent Chontal comprising, along with Ch'ol, the 'Western Ch'olan' branch, and Ch'olti' and Ch'orti' as the two sub-branches of 'Eastern Ch'olan', as shown below.
From the late 1970s epigraphers and linguists began to work together to analyse the language(s) represented in the Maya hieroglyphs. One of the first of these collaborations was a 1979 conference held at the State University of New York in Albany (Justeson and Campbell, eds. 1984). During the conference both epigraphers and linguists suggested that the inscriptions recorded a form of Cholan (now spelled Ch'olan) and Yucatecan (now spelled Yukatekan) languages. Since the Albany conference researchers have unravelled many linguistic issues concerning the language(s) recorded in Maya hieroglyphic texts. Among these the most important (and hotly debated) concern the phonology (the sound system) and morphology (word formation) of the language(s), and which of the Ch'olan and Yukatekan languages were the language(s) involved in the inscriptions.
This explains the numerous Mayan images of African, as opposed to Asian Mayan Kings posted by Marc since as noted by Quatrefages the Chantal were Black/Negro
.
Remeber that those are statues, people don't look like statues.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
Yahoo! News Police: McCain volunteer made up robbery story By JOE MANDAK, Associated Press Writer Joe Mandak, Associated Press Writer 9 mins ago
PITTSBURGH – A McCain campaign volunteer made up a story of being robbed, pinned to the ground and having the letter "B" scratched on her face in a politically inspired attack, police said Friday.
Ashley Todd, 20-year-old college student from College Station, Texas, admitted Friday that the story was false and was being charged with making a false report to police, said Maurita Bryant, the assistant chief of the police department's investigations division. Police doubted her story from the start, Bryant said.
Todd, who is white, told police she was attacked by a 6-foot-4 black man Wednesday night. She now can't explain why she invented the story, Bryant said.
Todd also told police she believes she cut the backward "B" onto her own cheek, but she didn't explain how or why, Bryant said.
Todd initially told investigators she was attempting to use a bank branch ATM when the man approached her from behind, put a knife with a 4- to 5-inch blade to her throat and demanded money. She told police she handed the assailant $60 and walked away.
Todd told investigators that she suspected the man then noticed a John McCain sticker on her car, became angry and punched her in the back of the head, knocking her to the ground and telling her "you are going to be a Barack supporter," police said.
She said he continued to punch and kick her while threatening "to teach her a lesson for being a McCain supporter," police said. She said he then sat on her chest, pinned her hands down with his knees and scratched a backward letter "B" into her face with a dull knife.
Todd told police she didn't seek medical attention, but instead went to a friend's apartment nearby and called police about 45 minutes later.
The Associated Press could not immediately locate Todd's family.
Bryant said somebody charged with making a false report would typically be cited and sent a summons. But because police have concerns about Todd's mental health, they are consulting with the Allegheny County District Attorney. She remained in custody and was awaiting arraignment.
Todd worked in New York for the College Republican National Committee before moving two weeks ago to Pennsylvania, where her duties included recruiting college students, the committee's executive director, Ethan Eilon, has said.
Eilon declined to comment on the investigation Friday or to help The Associated Press contact Todd.
Earlier Friday, police said they had found inconsistencies in Todd's story. They gave her a lie-detector test, but wouldn't release the polygraph results. Investigators also said bank surveillance photos did not back up the woman's initial story of being attacked at an ATM.
Police interviewed Todd after she contacted police Wednesday night and again on Thursday, Bryant said. They asked her to come back Friday, ostensibly to help police put together a sketch of the man. Instead, detectives began interviewing her.
"They just started talking to her and she just opened up and said she wanted to tell the truth," Bryant said.
Bryant said it doesn't appear that anyone else put the woman up to the false report.
Police suspected all along that Todd might not be telling the truth, starting with the fact that the "B" was backward, Bryant said.
"We have robbers here in Pittsburgh, but they don't generally mutilate someone's face like that," Bryant said. "They just take the money and run."
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Pericu continued:
The piece on the Pericu above is very important in that it demonstrates two things.
1) That the Mississippi Indians were indeed Black, and that consequently, Amerindian tribes (such as the Seminoles) who are known to be descendants of the Mississippi, also have a Black linage.
2) How the pernicious racism of White people, invades and pollutes everyone that they come in contact with.
These “New” White Seminoles (the result of crossbreeding with White people) – together with other Whites, of course needed a NEW history. So they created the myth that the Black nature of post-Columbian Seminoles was the result of admixture between Seminoles and Maroons and Black slaves. Creating a “New” history to suit their needs, is of course NOT new to White people – the same was done in Europe and the Middle East and North Africa. To show their unmitigated Gall, they even tried it in Egypt - a country which had ancient artifacts which proved their lies - I guess they were saying: "Who you gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes. Oh yes - they have lots of gall!
Note how these modern “White” Seminoles, treat their ancestral fathers.
The "red-faced" White guy on the right is Seminole tribe Chief James Billie.
By Andrew Metz
Wewoka, Okla. -- Kenneth Chambers, chief of the Seminole Nation, is absolutely sure of the truth of the matter. "There is no black Seminole," he expostulated on a recent day, rising from his chair to drive the point home like a preacher warning of hell and damnation.
In this ink spot of an Indian town, however, not far from the tribe's headquarters on the Oklahoma prairie, the faces of Wewoka present a conflicting impression.
"My folks is Indian," said Roosevelt Davis, a man as dark as any of African descent. Walking through the long leaf pines he planted on land that has been his family's for almost 100 years, he put his hand on his chest and said simply, "I'm Seminole."
After two centuries of coexistence that has rarely made most history books, a chasm has opened between the descendants of the Seminole people, Indians and escaped slaves who banded together in Florida against the white onslaught and were eventually deposited here along what became known as the Trail of Tears.
Though history and intermingling made cousins of the two groups, time and money and the modern experiences of being black or Indian or both have chewed away at all they shared in common, leaving the ligaments of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma exposed and aching.
The blacks, still known around here as Freedmen, have been excluded from millions of dollars awarded to the Seminole in the early 1990s for the seizure of their land in Florida a century earlier. And three years ago they were stripped of their Seminole status altogether through the imposition of an ancestral blood standard for membership that few could prove.
This is how the Seminole USED to look, before they became “White”
(Re-posted to get back picture!)
Meanwhile......... These African Native Americans wouldn't dare spew the nonsense these idiots are spewing here. As they know who they are and where they come from. As explained below.
"AFRICAN-NATIVE AMERICANS : WE ARE STILL HERE" is based on an exhibit, curated by Ms. Eve Winddancer and with photos by Mr. Louis B. Myers, at the William and Anita Newman Library, 3rd fl.
Many people believe racial and ethnic groups in North America have always lived as separately as they do now. However, segregation was neither practical nor preferable when people who were not native to this continent began arriving here. Europeans needed Indians as guides, trade partners and military allies. They needed Africans to tend their crops and to build an infrastructure.
Later, as the new American government began to thrive, laws were drafted to protect the land and property the colonists had acquired. These laws strengthened the powers of slave owners, limited the rights of free Africans and barred most Indian rights altogether. Today, black, white and red Americans still feel the aftershock of those laws.
In order to enforce the new laws, Indians and Africans had to be distinguished from Europeans. Government census takers began visiting Indian communities east of the Mississippi River in the late 1700s and continued their task of identifying, categorizing, and counting individuals and "tribes" well into the 20th century. In the earlier days of this process, Native American communities that were found to be ***harboring escaped African slaves*** were threatened with loss of their tribal status, thereby nullifying their treaties with the U.S. government and relinquishing all claims to their land.
Despite the restrictions imposed by the U.S. government, Indians and Africans still managed to form close bonds. Some Native American communities ignored the laws and continued to aid fleeing African slaves. Some free Africans aided displaced Indians. Sometimes the two groups came together in "prayer towns" -- European communities that welcomed and protected converts to Christianity, regardless of race. Sometimes, Indian women married African men when the number of men in their own communities was decimated by war or natural disaster. Some Native Americans listed themselves as "Negro" or "mixed" in order to retain ownership of their land.
DID YOU KNOW ??? At the time of Columbus, the subcontinent of India was referred to as Hindustan or the Deccan. The European term for indigenous peoples all over the world was "Indians" from the Spanish "In Dios" meaning "God's people".
Some Native Americans refused to sign the census rolls during the 18th and 19th centuries, some refused to register with the Bureau of Indian Affairs or to allow themselves to be "removed" to "Indian Territory" in Oklahoma during the 1800s. As a result, many of their descendants grew up in urban environments instead of on reservations. This isn't the image of Native American experience most people carry in their heads but, in this part of the country, it is quite prevalent.
There are no villages tucked away in Suffolk county -- or anywhere else, for that matter -- where people live in teepees, hunt with bows and arrows and cook over open fires. Our lives reflect the same diversity as any other cultural group in America. We are wealthy, middle class and impoverished. We are educated and ignorant. We are employed and unemployed. We are Americans.
What sets American Indian cultures apart from many others is our attitude toward life. Simply stated, we believe we were not born ON this Earth, we were born OF this Earth. In other words, the Earth is our mother and we would no sooner mistreat her than you would the woman who raised you. This is the primary ingredient in the cultural glue that holds us all together.
Hollywood has taught us to associate the facial features you see here with red skin and sweeping Southwestern vistas, yet these people have skin tones that range from coffee to cream and most live in the New York metropolitan area.They are of African descent but they are also Blackfoot, Canarsie, Caribe, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Lenape, Matinecock, Mohawk, Munsee, Ramapo, Shinnecock, Seminole, Unkechaug, Taino. They have spiritual names in addition to the names that appear on their birth certificates; they dance at powwows wearing full regalia; they have naming ceremonies for their children. Some of them speak indigenous languages, some fast on the full moon in accordance with ancient religious beliefs, and all are extremely proud of their mixed heritage. They embody the intertwining of two of America's most stalwart and dynamic ethnic communities.
DID YOU KNOW ??? The first slaves in the "New World" were Indians. However, colonists found them difficult to contain -- they knew the surrounding countryside and those who had not been captured often organized successful rescue efforts. For a time, slave merchants continued to raid Native American communities along the central and southern shores of the Eastern Seaboard and to encourage local warriors to barter captives they would otherwise kill for European trade goods. The women and children the merchants acquired were sold alongside Africans to buyers in the north while the men were shipped to plantations in the Caribbean.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Correct many Black Indians were sold into slavery. This is why most African Indians disappeared in the America.
The only thing that saved many Asian Indians was that they were nomads.
Some my ancestors were Choctaw according to my mother. My wifes family on her father's side has direct Cherokee ancestry. My mother in-laws grand mother only "spoke Indian".
As you can see writing about the Paleo-Americans is just acknowledging part of my history--just like I write about continental African history.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: ^Correct many Black Indians were sold into slavery. This is why most African Indians disappeared in the America.
The only thing that saved many Asian Indians was that they were nomads.
Some my ancestors were Choctaw according to my mother. My wifes family on her father's side has direct Cherokee ancestry. My mother in-laws grand mother only "spoke Indian".
As you can see writing about the Paleo-Americans is just acknowledging part of my history--just like I write about continental African history.
.
Wrong Clyde it doesn't say many black Indians were sold into slavery it says, African slaves brought from Africa, used to escape, and become part of the Native American community. The Native American tribes were threatened with the forfeiture of their tribal status if they were found harboring ***African slaves***
Your ancestry from Native Americans does not go past 500 years ago, sorry Clyde.
quote:In order to enforce the new laws, Indians and Africans had to be distinguished from Europeans. Government census takers began visiting Indian communities east of the Mississippi River in the late 1700s and continued their task of identifying, categorizing, and counting individuals and "tribes" well into the 20th century. In the earlier days of this process, Native American communities that were found to be ***harboring escaped African slaves*** were threatened with loss of their tribal status, thereby nullifying their treaties with the U.S. government and relinquishing all claims to their land.
Despite the restrictions imposed by the U.S. government, Indians and Africans still managed to form close bonds. Some Native American communities ignored the laws and continued to aid fleeing African slaves. Some free Africans aided displaced Indians. Sometimes the two groups came together in "prayer towns" -- European communities that welcomed and protected converts to Christianity, regardless of race. Sometimes, Indian women married African men when the number of men in their own communities was decimated by war or natural disaster. Some Native Americans listed themselves as "Negro" or "mixed" in order to retain ownership of their land.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde Winters wrote: -------------------------------- Some my ancestors were Choctaw according to my mother. My wifes family on her father's side has direct Cherokee ancestry. My mother in-laws grand mother only "spoke Indian".
As you can see writing about the Paleo-Americans is just acknowledging part of my history--just like I write about continental African history. --------------------------------
LOL now we see why these freaks are chasing after "black" hawaiians, welshmen, japanese, and latvians.
Po thang, everyone can see that you have low self-esteem.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's okay Prmiddleeastern, Knowledgeiskey, you two can hold hands with Djehuti and dance around the campfire until all that related black blood ceases to exist. This way when the 'white' boys come by you can tell them all about your inner thoughts and frustrations and how you're truly related to blacks but you ain't related to blacks no mo'.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^Was this supposed to be even remotely funny, or even make sense???
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with all this black/native american/african/indian talk is that people confuse terms. First off, "Indian" is not an accurate term for the indigenous people of the Americas prior to European contact, as they had nothing to do with India the sub continent. It has nothing to do with their identity and/or history. Second, skin color, for ANYONE with an ounce of understanding, is something that varies among ALL populations on earth, especially those prior to European and North Asian contact. Therefore, native Americans had various complexions, from very dark to very light, as well as various features, from more Asian, to more Australian aborigine to more "african looking". That does not make them Africans, no more than Aborigines of Asia are Africans. Of course all of this is lost due to the hyper racialism of the whites who conquered the Americas and exterminated millions of native Americans. But that does not mean we need to persist in propagating such confusion.
PRIOR to the arrival of Europeans in America, there were and still are VERY dark elements of the native American population. SOME of them may have been the result of direct contact with African migrants, but MOST are descended from the ABORIGINAL populations who came to the Americas, most likely from Asia and were most likely black, like all other aborigines. Over time, succeeding waves of migrants of various complexions arrived and added to the diversity in the populations. When Europeans arrived, they too began to add their own mark to native American populations, as Europeans fathered many a child among the native women. Not only that but there were also native groups who had substantial interaction with African populations introduced to the Americas by the Europeans. However, NONE of this changes the fact that the native populations, PRIOR to their extinction were QUITE diverse and the arrival of Europeans put an end to these populations AND that diversity.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde Winters wrote: --------------------------- As you can see writing about the Paleo-Americans is just acknowledging part of my history--just like I write about continental African history. ---------------------------
You're lying. Everybody on this forum knows it. Damn near 99.9% of your posts are about "blacks" somewhere other than Africa.
You're a beatdown AA, Clyde your ashamed of Africa. You see people whites have told Clyde that "blacks" in Africa are primitive, hapless, dumb, worthless, wretched people who are nothing but slaves to the rest of the world.
Clyde believes the above and hates himself. He knows he can't escape his "blackness" so therefore he has to mythicize "blacks" out of Africa. Again this is because the whites have told him that Africans primitive, hapless, dumb, worthless, wretched people so therefore its "blacks" who are not African who are his focus. Because in his mind they are seen by whites as having more value than "blacks" in Africa.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. 
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic