posted
LOL how can DE be further from E than other lineages? And most Melanasians are actually E and J. I don't care about your bogus studies.
Posts: 368 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
Also I wonder if the "genetic distance" is a good thing. Afterall, incest is not a good thing (like in some cultures you MUST marry your own sister or else they kidnap you and kill you ) . If Europeans are closer to Africans than most other groups, then perhaps we're missing something. Perhaps the closer genetically people are, the more likely they are to harm each other.
It kind of makes sense when you look at siblings and how they behave.
Sometimes, our worst enemy is in the family.
Posts: 368 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me when you talk about the people in the Eastern Pacific, where the islands are small, you are talking about populations more susceptible to foreign contact having major impacts on the population. European contact has changed populations all over the globe so the Pacific is no exception. Just like there are mixed populations of blacks in the U.S. so are there similar mixtures of the original natives and other outsiders. In neither case does it really change the features of the original Africans in America or the original populations of the Pacific. Yet Europeans and their race science have tried to cover up the original features in some cases or tried to elevate certain features above others, which of course has resulted in some being confused. This of course has happened almost everywhere they conquered.
So in many places throughout the pacific there are populations today who are not the same today as they were even 100 years ago. Just like populations in America today aren't the same as they were 200 years ago (more natives).
Who are these "everyone"? Who or what states that Melanasians are Africans?
They have lived in that part of Asia for over 50,000 years. They have NOTHING to do with Africa. Whether you like it or not Europeans are closer to Africans than Melas.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're full of it man. How can a people who came OOA have "NOTHING" to do with Africa.
Can't you see how illogical you are.
-------------------- Are we going somewhere or are you going to keep annoying me with your boring lectures professor-warrior?? Posts: 368 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
A book that discusses the "types" of original Maori showing the nonsense racial classifications used by whites to separate populations in the Pacific by skin color. Of course Polynesian in this scheme always means creamy colored mulatto or white, with Melanesian obviously meaning black and the former being identified as superior to the latter. This notwithstanding the fact that when Europeans first arrived in the Islands, most of the populations WERE primarily black, with a wide range of features among them.
quote: As members of the far-spread Polynesian race, the Maori folk of New Zealand are found on enquiry to have preserved the leading characteristics of that people. Leading features of such peculiarities are a stalwart physique and a high order of intelligence. To judge the Maori, or his brethren of northern isles, by the general state of backwardness in which they lived, by their somewhat primitive arts and artifacts, would assuredly be a misjudgment. It was here that Morgan erred when he placed the Polynesians in the lowest existing state of savagery, and indeed on the same culture plane as that of the natives of Australia. Evidence given in the following chapter will be sufficient to lift the Maori from such companionship. A very marked feature in the physical attributes of the Maori is noted in the many Melanesian affinities in evidence, showing that the Maori must have intermarried with those dark-skinned folk, probably since he left the sunlit isles of Eastern Polynesia. In the frequent occurrence of the darkskin colour, thick, protruding lips, flat nose, wide nostrils, and frizzy hair, we find proofs of a Melanesian admixture. This fact is also supported by an examination of the head form of our local natives. In a paper contributed to Vol. XXXVI. of the Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, Dr. J. H. Scott gives the results of an examination of a series of eighty-three Maori skulls. He remarks:—“We know the Maori to be a mixed race, the result of a mingling of a Polynesian and a Melanesian strain. The crania already examined leave no room for doubt on this point.” He also shows that the average or typical Maori skull occupies the lower limit of the mesaticephalic group. Of the skulls examined, forty-three per cent. were dolichocephalic. Further on he writes:—“If any further proof were needed of the mixed origin of the Maori race it is given in this paper. An examination of the cranial indices, and of the extent of their variation, shows this clearly. These demonstrate two distinct types and intermediate forms. At the one extreme we have skulls approaching the Melanesian, as met with in the Fiji group, long and narrow, high in proportion to their breadth, pragnathous, and with wide nasal openings. At the other skulls of the Polynesian type, such as are common in Tonga and Samoa, shorter and broader, with orthognathous faces. And it must be noted that these extreme forms do not belong to different tribes, or districts, but may both be found in one.” Now, in view of our latest information as to the original inhabitants of these islands, the above remarks, as also the following passage, are of much interest. “The Melanesian characteristics are therefore more accentuated in the North than amongst the natives of the South Island. The prevalence of the Papuan form among skulls from the Bay of Islands has also been observed by M. M. de Quatrefages and Hamy.” Dr. Scott also notes the fact that the teeth in the skulls examined by him had the whole crowns ground away, but that he never detected any sign of dental caries. The present writer has noticed the same peculiarity in many old native skulls seen in caves and hollow trees, where they had been deposited after the exhumation of the bones of the tribal dead.
It is quite possible that some of the statements made by Dr. Scott will have to be modified when the results of the more extensive researches now being made by Dr. P. H. Buck are published.
The accounts preserved in oral tradition of the peculiarities of the original native folk of New Zealand, portray them as a dark-skinned folk of inferior culture. They had bushy heads of hair, flat faces, side glancing eyes, flat noses and spreading nostrils; “the nostrils seemed to be all the nose they had,” states one account. They were of spare build, and were an indolent, shiftless, chilly folk who complained of the coldness of the climate. They were found in occupation of the more northern parts of the North Island only, from Taranaki and the Bay of Plenty northward. None had settled in the South Island. If these were not a Melanesian folk, then they must have possessed strong Melanesian characteristics. A tradition among them explains that they were the descendants of the occupants of three drift canoes that had been carried from their home land by a westerly gale. All these particulars tend to support the conclusions of Dr. Scott. It may also be mentioned that a number of early voyagers and sojourners in this land mention the Melanesian element so strongly in evidence here. Another item of evidence, and withal a curious one, concerns an old native custom. Missionary Yates and other early writers have told us that the Maori mothers were in the habit of flattening the noses of their infants by means of pressure. This peculiar custom would not have originated among the purer, straight-nosed Polynesians; one can but think that it dates back to the flat-nosed aboriginal women who were taken to wife by the early Polynesian settlers on these shores.
It is quite possible that a certain amount of mixture with Melanesians has taken place here in later times. In the Bay of Plenty district a tradition has been preserved to the effect that, about four hundred years ago, a canoe made the land at Whakatane, having come from over sea. Probably it was a drift voyage, but the interesting part is that the newcomers are said to have been black men. They settled among the Awa folk at Meheu, or Omeheu, on the Rangitaiki River. Yet another interesting subject on which much might be said is the fact that, among our Maori folk exist certain arts, customs, institutions and artifacts that are unknown in Polynesia, but which are known in Melanesia. Thus the well-known curvilinear decorative art of the Maori finds no counterpart in Polynesia, but something much resembling it exists in New Guinea. The fortified villages of New Zealand, with stockades, fighting stages, and massive earthworks, were unknown in Polynesia. At Tonga alone was something of the kind seen in that area, a result of intercourse with Fiji, where, on Viti-levu, such fortified villages were numerous. These are but examples of many such striking parallels.
Again, this document reflects the fact that since Europeans have arrived in the Pacific they have tried to make a FALSE separation between Eastern and Western Pacific populations purely based on their own nonsense racial paradigms and not on facts. However, even with the overt racial propaganda they themselves make the point that much of what is so-called Polynesian culture actually originates in Melanesia and the sculpture and carvings they reference are those of the populations of the Sepik River in Papua New Guinea. These things drive home the point that Eastern Pacific populations were not separate from those of the Western pacific and most of the claims of such a separation are purely based on European "scientific" racial dogma than anything else.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
So what you are trying to say is that Everyone who came OOA are still African?
Your arguement holds no weight. If thats the case then Chinese, Japanese, Indians etc are still Africans. It also means that Europeans are STILL Africans.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
What more can be said to you? You think that Everyone is still African no matter how long they have been out of Africa. So all ethnicities are African and should be spoken about as such.
If this is how you feel then technically your right. Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Europeans, Native Americans all originally come from Africa even though it's been a looong Time.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bottom line the pacific has not only examples of some of the oldest populations in Asia but also the diversity of populations and features that has come about since the OOA migration, most of which are among tropically adapted people and represents a good cross section of many of the types that at one point probably inhabited much of Asia.
posted
He doesn't think everyone is African. He is only trolling, creating fake talking points that can then be said to represent "Afrocentrism".. yawn... another fake agent provocateur..
Posts: 124 | From: Zurich | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe because they don't have a culture that steal everyone else's ideas and traditions, pretending that it is theirs, then putting their name on it and selling it, while FORCING the natives not to be able to do the same. Or a culture that makes a profit off of stealing everyone else's property, land, labor and wealth in order to build their own thieving *ss culture. And maybe they don't believe they have risen above the nature of that great serpent the shining sun who eats his own tail....... Or mabybe they aren't fake prophets of the sun who never built any ancient sun temples anywhere and who actually destroyed those they came across, who bring death on a stick to all those who actually worshiped the sun....
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Hmmm..... and New Zealand is right next to Australia isn't it? Something fishy here no doubt in this "Polynesians ain't related to aborginal blacks (melanesians)" stuff.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug please check your private messages when you get the chance, I WOULD LOVE to here your opinion about a certain topic. I've been reading the posts on this site for a while but didn't register till today .
Posts: 3 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have been reading several reports on this and I think I will leave this alone for now. It appears to be too many unanswered questions.
The best research I have found is as follows:
Polynesian origins: Insights from the Y chromosome Bing Su*, Li Jin*,†, Peter Underhill‡, Jeremy Martinson§, Nilmani Saha¶, Stephen T. McGarvey‖, Mark D. Shriver**, Jiayou Chu‡‡, Peter Oefner‡, Ranajit Chakraborty*, and Ranjan Deka††,§
At this time, however, it is not possible to conclusively localize the center of origin of the Polynesian ancestors.
mtDNA data suggested a spread of humans from Taiwan to Polynesia by way of a corridor through the Philippines and Indonesia. A pattern involving nucleotide substitutions in the control region of the mtDNA genome, dubbed the Polynesian motif (5, 6), was found in high frequencies in this corridor with the highest in Polynesia. Related types of this motif also were found in appreciable frequencies in this area of distribution and the Taiwanese populations showed the highest diversity. Based on these observations, the origin of the Polynesian motif was traced to Taiwan (6), which seemed to provide strong genetic support to the express train hypothesis. A recent reanalysis (8) of the published mtDNA data (3, 5), however, questioned the validity of this proposition. Richards et al. (8) argued that, based on assessment of divergence times for the motif and age estimates of the relevant populations, mtDNA data do not support a Taiwanese origin of the Polynesians. Rather, the evidence is more consistent with an island Southeast Asian ancestry, the homeland being in eastern Indonesia.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is a summary of the issues surrounding polynesian settlement. Some of it is truly based on data and some of it is more based on ideology than anything else.
quote: The human settlement of the Pacific Islands represents one of the most recent major migration events of mankind. Polynesians originated in Asia according to linguistic evidence or in Melanesia according to archaeological evidence. To shed light on the genetic origins of Polynesians, we investigated over 400 Polynesians from 8 island groups, in comparison with over 900 individuals from potential parental populations of Melanesia, Southeast and East Asia, and Australia, by means of Y chromosome (NRY) and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) markers. Overall, we classified 94.1% of Polynesian Y chromosomes and 99.8% of Polynesian mtDNAs as of either Melanesian (NRY-DNA: 65.8%, mtDNA: 6%) or Asian (NRY-DNA: 28.3%, mtDNA: 93.8%) origin, suggesting a dual genetic origin of Polynesians in agreement with the "Slow Boat" hypothesis. Our data suggest a pronounced admixture bias in Polynesians toward more Melanesian men than women, perhaps as a result of matrilocal residence in the ancestral Polynesian society. Although dating methods are consistent with somewhat similar entries of NRY/mtDNA haplogroups into Polynesia, haplotype sharing suggests an earlier appearance of Melanesian haplogroups than those from Asia. Surprisingly, we identified gradients in the frequency distribution of some NRY/mtDNA haplogroups across Polynesia and a gradual west-to-east decrease of overall NRY/mtDNA diversity, not only providing evidence for a west-to-east direction of Polynesian settlements but also suggesting that Pacific voyaging was regular rather than haphazard. We also demonstrate that Fiji played a pivotal role in the history of Polynesia: humans probably first migrated to Fiji, and subsequent settlement of Polynesia probably came from Fiji.
The colonization of Polynesia which ranges from Hawaii in the north to Easter Islands in the east, Fiji in the west, and New Zealand in the south, is still a matter of debate. According to linguistic evidence, Polynesian languages are closely related to each other and belong to the Austronesian language family that can be traced back to East Asia, in particular to the present-day languages of Taiwanese Aborigines (Blust 1999Go; Diamond 2000Go). Furthermore, linguistic evidence (Gray and Jordan 2000Go) is usually interpreted to support the "Express-train" hypothesis (Diamond 1988Go), according to which Polynesian ancestors moved rapidly from Eastern Asia into the Pacific without significant admixture with Melanesians (we use the term "Melanesia" in the geographic sense, to include here the mainland of New Guinea and surrounding islands, also referred to as Near Oceania).
Archaeological evidence suggests that western Polynesian islands (Fiji, Futuna, Samoa, Tonga) were settled 2,100–3,200 years ago by people belonging to the so-called Lapita cultural complex that originated 3,000–3,500 years ago in Island Melanesia, in particular the Bismarck Archipelago (Kirch 2000Go). However, some archaeologists argue that the Lapita cultural complex originated about 6,000 years ago in China and thus associate the spread of Austronesian languages with the Neolithic spread of material culture, including agriculture and Lapita, from East Asia into the Pacific under the Express-train scenario (Bellwood 1978Go; Diamond and Bellwood 2003)Go, whereas others suggest a strict Melanesian origin of the Lapita cultural complex (White et al. 1988Go; Terrell 1989Go; Terrell et al. 2001Go). Besides the 2 "extreme" models, the "Express train" assuming an Asian origin of Polynesians with no or little admixture of ingenious Melanesians and the "Entangled bank" assuming a long and complex history of human interactions starting from the first occupation of Melanesia in the Pleistocene (Terrell 1988Go), there are additional "intermediate" models such as the "Triple I" (Green 1991Go). The Triple I model assumes that components of the Lapita cultural complex are results of Intrusions of nonindigenous Asian components together with the Integration of indigenous Melanesian elements and new Innovations (Green 1991Go).
In contrast to the clear evidence for an Asian origin of Polynesian languages and a probable Melanesian origin of the Lapita material culture found in Polynesia, the genetic origin of Polynesians is still contentious. Studies of maternally inherited mtDNA markers have favored an Asian origin of Polynesian maternal lineages (Melton et al. 1995Go; Redd et al. 1995Go; Sykes et al. 1995Go; Trejaut et al. 2005Go) in support of the Express-train hypothesis. In contrast, studies of paternally inherited DNA markers from the nonrecombining portion of the Y chromosome (NRY) have revealed a mostly Melanesian origin of Polynesian paternal lineages (Kayser, Brauer et al. 2000Go; Capelli et al. 2001Go; Underhill, Passarino, Lin, Marzuki et al. 2001Go; Hurles et al. 2002Go) supporting the "Slow Boat" hypothesis (Kayser, Brauer et al. 2000Go). The Slow Boat model assumes that Polynesian ancestors originated in Eastern Asia but mixed extensively with indigenous Melanesians before colonizing the Pacific (Kayser, Brauer et al. 2000Go). Unfortunately, a similar term "Slow boat to Melanesia" was subsequently used to suggest a Southeast Asian genetic origin of Polynesians in the Pleistocene based on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) evidence (Diamond 2001Go; Oppenheimer and Richards 2001Go). Studies of autosomal DNA markers suggest different scenarios depending on the markers used, for example, a Melanesian origin of Polynesian hemoglobin genes (Hill et al. 1985Go, 1987Go) versus an Asian origin of Polynesian human leucocyte antigen (HLA) genes (Mack et al. 2000Go; Mack and Erlich 2005Go).
In this study, we have used NRY and mtDNA markers to investigate the paternal and maternal genetic origin of over 400 individuals from 8 different Polynesian island groups by comparing them with over 900 individuals from Melanesia, Southeast and East Asia, and Australia. This significant increase over previous studies, both in populations and markers analyzed, provides new insights into the history of the human colonization of the Pacific.
While many studies seem to go round and round on this issue, the latter part of this extract identifies most of the concerns addressed.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just a note on the idea of the Samoans being tropical "Chinese". Many people do not realize how much an impact European contact, disease, labor importation and migration have had in the Pacific.
But in Samoa, the main colonial resource was Phosphorus and here, just as in the rest of the Pacific, the Europeans imported laborers from all over to do the work. In Samoa, the main populations brought in were CHINESE. Over time, these Chinese, because of Chinese government oversight, gained a legal status ABOVE that of the native people of Samoa. The Samoans had no representation, got paid no wages and were legally 3rd class citizens in their own country.
In fact there has been a sometimes tense issue of Chinese migration to Samoa over the last 100 years. Starting with workers imported to work on German mines, to later migrations, Samoans have been trying hard to maintain their identity and culture from being overrun by foreigners, most of which is directly due to the influence of European capitalists.
quote: The first Chinese arrived in Samoa as free settlers during the 19th century in small numbers until a ban was issued by Malietoa Laupepa 1880 to prevent people of Chinese descent from settling in Samoa. However, in 1903, Wilhelm Solf managed to acquire the support of the Samoan Fono and lifted Malietoa's ban, allowing Chinese coolies to work in the plantations as indentured labourers. However, coolies faced harsh conditions and were subjected to brutal treatment from their masters.
Chinese immigrants were constituted almost entirely of men, and most of the labourers took Samoan women as wives and by 1918 offspring of Chinese-Samoan descent were a visible minority, although smaller in terms of population compared to offspring of European (particularly German) and Samoan descent.[11] This eventually led to a ban in 1931 that prohibited Chinese men from interacting with Samoan women on all grounds. By the end of World War II only 295 Chinese remained, all of whom had either taken Samoan wives or were unmarried. Many Chinese coolies had since returned to China or remained in Samoa with their families.
In 1994, China provided financial assistance to the construction of the government building in Apia.[12] Aeau Peniamina, deputy leader of Samoa Democratic United Party, caused a minor controversy in January 2005 when he remarked that "there are too many Chinese in the country". Joe Keil, the Minister of Tourism, who is of part-Chinese descent, promptly rebutted Peniamina's remarks.[13]
Samoans of Chinese descent are well-represented in the civil service,[14] and China established diplomatic relations with Samoa in November 1975.[15] People of Chinese descent are especially well represented in the retail and restaurant sectors, notably in Apia.[16]
quote:Originally posted by osirion: No, the dominant haplogroup found in African Americans is that same as that found in Bantu speaking people. Concepts of race are ignored by me.
We don't have to use genetics to know the origin of AAs. The historical evidence makes it clear that we came mainly from the Senegambia--not Bantu speaking areas like the Congo.
.
The majority of African Americans come from bantu speaking people. The majority of African Americans come from central africa and southern africa with the majority all consisting of bantu groups and language. More African Americans came from Cameroon, Nigeria, Congo, and Angola than from Liberia, Senegambia, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Niger, Mali, Ivory Coast put together. The majority that were taken from West-Africa were still of Bantu origin. Non-bantu is in the minority with African Americans.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ China is an awfully large place. What is interesting about the article is that it disputes the idea that Samoan are related to Australian and Negrito people. They apparently are neither a mixture or related and are indeed from the mainland of Asia and related to other people that are referred to as Chinese.
Samoans aren't related to chinese. They are a polynesian people and they are related to many other polynesians and melanesians you find the in the south pacific.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
It is said that indigenous south Americans and tribes from southern U.S. are in fact polynesian in origin.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ China is an awfully large place. What is interesting about the article is that it disputes the idea that Samoan are related to Australian and Negrito people. They apparently are neither a mixture or related and are indeed from the mainland of Asia and related to other people that are referred to as Chinese.
Samoans aren't related to chinese. They are a polynesian people and they are related to many other polynesians and melanesians you find the in the south pacific.
What genetic report says this? What I have read and provided in this thread is that there is evidence supporting a Taiwan origin of the Samoans in the last 5000 years.
Regardless of their phenotype, which Dough has provided many examples of, I have yet to see evidence supporting a Melanesian, Micronesian or even a Polynesian origin of the Samoans.
Where is the genetic evidence? I realize the Samoans are culturally Polynesian, but does that make them Polynesian? Sudanese are culturally Arab but they are only partially Arabic. Samoans are likely only partially Polynesian and in fact more aboriginal Chinese.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
You realize that the history of the Pacific over the last 150 years makes it almost impossible to make an accurate genetic assessment of what the lineages were even 200 years ago. Many islands have been heavily influenced by invaders and migrants in that period of time. Case in point, there are almost 0 full blood Hawaiians in Hawaii. And not many with more than 50% Hawaiian blood. And of course almost all the original Hawaiians were dark black with curly hair like Melanesians. Hawaii is even farther away from Melanesia than Samoa, but yet the Hawaiians had features very similar to Melanesians, like those of Fiji.
My opinion is that like anything else, the researchers are using selective samples to bias the results and create a fake distinction between Eastern Pacific populations and those in the Western Pacific. As I noted earlier, FIJI is acknowledged by many as the homeland of Polynesian culture and the Fijians are black and the closest physically to the original Hawaiians and other so-called Polynesians. However, the genetic study did not sample people from Fiji. By omiting Fiji from the sample set they are making the Eastern Islands artificially distant from the Western ones. No doubt if they did sample the Fijians, they would no doubt be closer to the polynesians than the Melanesians. Now, with all this concern about the origin of the polynesians and the fact that the oldest artifacts from that part of the Pacific are in Fiji, why aren't there any DNA studies from FIJI?
All the studies I have seen sample Melanesia and Polyenesia but skip over Fiji. That sounds odd don't you think?
Keep in mind that Melanesia only means black while Polynesia means mixed, which indicates that those of the eastern Islands have more recent admixture. But all of those islands were originally populated by blacks.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ China is an awfully large place. What is interesting about the article is that it disputes the idea that Samoan are related to Australian and Negrito people. They apparently are neither a mixture or related and are indeed from the mainland of Asia and related to other people that are referred to as Chinese.
Samoans aren't related to chinese. They are a polynesian people and they are related to many other polynesians and melanesians you find the in the south pacific.
What genetic report says this? What I have read and provided in this thread is that there is evidence supporting a Taiwan origin of the Samoans in the last 5000 years.
There is no Taiwan evdience of Samoans. The indigenous people of Taiwan belong to the many aboriginal stocks you find in the south pacific. The aboriginal Taiwanese fit in with polynesian stock but they aren't the Great-granddaddy of Samoans. They probably came from the same bark of other south pacific polynesians but from a different branch.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Then why doesn't genetic evidence support that clearly? Look at how different Ethiopians are from the Bantu and yet its clear that they are related genetically. Why not the Polynesian and Samoan people?
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could you please state the languages spoken in Ghana, Nigeria, and the Senegambia (which according to the data that you haven't refuted apparently make up to 60% of the AA descendancy) that are Bantu. Waiting.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: No, the dominant haplogroup found in African Americans is that same as that found in Bantu speaking people.
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by osirion: No, the dominant haplogroup found in African Americans is that same as that found in Bantu speaking people. Concepts of race are ignored by me.
We don't have to use genetics to know the origin of AAs. The historical evidence makes it clear that we came mainly from the Senegambia--not Bantu speaking areas like the Congo.
.
Actually Ghana is the most common source.
Senegambia (Senegal-Gambia) * 5.8% Sierra Leone 3.4% Windward Coast (Ivory Coast) * 12.1% Gold Coast (Ghana) * 14.4% Bight of Benin (Nigeria) * 14.5 Bight of Biafra (Nigeria) * 25.1% Central and Southeast Africa (Cameroon- N. Angola) * 24.7%
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bad/1200620704/in/set-72157601604831057/
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) . If Europeans are closer to Africans than most other groups, then perhaps we're missing something. Perhaps the closer genetically people are, the more likely they are to harm each other.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/6/10895616_110f860d0a.jpg
Printer-friendly view of this topic