U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-28-2018, 06:58 PM
Status: "Phillies baseball is MLB dysentery." (set 3 days ago)
 
1,240 posts, read 584,961 times
Reputation: 1228

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
What is taught about the Atlantic slave trade did not happen the way it is taught?

How can "historical accounts and drawings from many early explorers" counter what DNA now tells us?
What does DNA tell us with regards to the people in question? What does the DNA proof you can provide tell us about the features and characteristics of these people? I not even trying to debunk any points here but just presenting information from folks that challenges.

Seems like you and Chi just want to discredit and dismiss. That's understandable because of the thread's original topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-28-2018, 07:08 PM
 
3,774 posts, read 2,042,891 times
Reputation: 5213
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
How can "historical accounts and drawings from many early explorers" counter what DNA now tells us?
DNA tests only test one line of your family. So you are getting a 100% breakdown from one slice. You have two parents, who have parents, who also have parents etc. Also, whether native American shows up in your DNA depends on the sample. Who are they comparing the DNA against? My guess is not a person of color. Plus, culturally, indigenous people are less likely to test because they are often subject to studies without their permission. So there's that. I've heard from at least two sources that people who have ancient DNA are not going to show up in these tests because they haven't extracted DNA from a person with ancient DNA. Makes sense to me. So not only do you not have a big enough group to compare data to, but you also don't have a sample from the folks natives come from. Aaaaaand you're only testing a sliver of your lineage. That's a recipe for funny math...or paper genocide. This is why black people should do African Ancestry if they are going to test at all. At least they are testing people from your "race" and are honest about the fact that you are only getting results from one line. And finally, they don't want everyone to realize that race is a huge con and we're all a lot closer than we think.

At the end of the day, people of color need to accept that this society wasn't built for us. We need to figure out how to go from there and stop trying to get the government to recognise our humanity. This country was built on dehumanizing us.

We have all the internal mechanisms to discern who is family and who isn't. Most POC are spiritual people. We don't live and die by science and documents. Bloodlines are important, but "family" is way more than that. The European model of "family" doesn't value the same things we do, and that's okay. Different strokes for different folks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2018, 07:32 PM
 
6,566 posts, read 9,083,582 times
Reputation: 2842
I wonder what DNA tests would show for these Cubans?




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCFyhlE8sfQ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2018, 07:39 PM
 
3,774 posts, read 2,042,891 times
Reputation: 5213
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
1. Native Americans were not black they were tan and did not have African features hair and etc.

"Black" was a label given to so-called "African-Americans" and we accepted it. That is why I'm saying black Natives...because when people think "Native American" they generally think of someone who looks like a Mexican. Also, "negro" is "black" in Spanish. This is how the colonizers described the people. If you ask black Native Americans who they are they will say they are "native", "indigenous", "aboriginal" or they will name their tribe. Most so-called African-Americans do not know what tribes they originated from because as the government report said in the late 1800s, they mixed with the "negro" (aka "black" aka continental African) and lost their culture. This happened because the men died in war, were taken captive or were exterminated in some other manner. During America's early days this was the result of multiple wars (that we are not taught about in schools). Then there were the lynchings. Today the extermination is the result of police killings or jail. So who does that leave black women to mate with? Men from other cultures. This has been going on since the beginning of time. Let's not forget child kidnappings. So if you remove a child from his or her home and get rid of their elders, there is nobody to pass on family history. So then you get to create the child's history for him via school.


You know, I was thinking about another piece of evidence that supports black Americans being native to this land. It is offensive to call Native Americans "redmen", but black people have always had nicknames that may describe a physical attribute, and it is not offensive. Like I mentioned before, there is "redbone" to describe women who are light-skinned or have red undertones to their skin. Men were called "Red". If you're AA, I'm sure you know somebody whose nickname is some variation of "blue-black". Other indigenous cultures do this as well. You might get called "flaca" if you are skinny or "gordo" if you are...portly. It is not an insult. And this traces back to Native American names for places. Oklahoma is named such because it means "red (homa) people (okla)" in Choctaw. Indigenous people are pretty blunt in this way. Same thing among African tribes. Names are a big deal and they have ceremonies to introduce a child's name. In Ghanaian culture you have a day name. So if you are a male born on a Friday your day name is "Kofi". Because I've known Nigerian people, I can usually tell if someone is Yoruba or Igobo based on their name. This impresses Nigerians because they think we are ignorant about such things. So the fact that AAs also have this culture of naming people based on physical attributes or some other characteristic dealing with their personality lends credence to the theory (which to me isn't a theory but I'll say so for argument's sake) that they are indigenous to America. But for some reason, those whom we think of as Native Americans, who are 9 times out of 10 not "red" at all, have a problem with it.


Black Americans were given Christian names because missionaries came over to convert people - a practice that is still being done today. I even posted part of a dialogue where one of the colonizers reported that Christians were only in America temporarily. Hmmm. I wonder why.

Last edited by treemoni; 11-28-2018 at 07:52 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2018, 07:54 PM
 
3,774 posts, read 2,042,891 times
Reputation: 5213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion View Post
I wonder what DNA tests would show for these Cubans?

My educated guess is that most black Cubans have direct lines to Africa. Haiti as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2018, 10:13 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,452 posts, read 28,322,096 times
Reputation: 29049
Quote:
Originally Posted by 80s_kid View Post
What does DNA tell us with regards to the people in question? What does the DNA proof you can provide tell us about the features and characteristics of these people? I not even trying to debunk any points here but just presenting information from folks that challenges.

Seems like you and Chi just want to discredit and dismiss. That's understandable because of the thread's original topic.
The DNA tells us about the genetic ancestry of modern African Americans, and that heritage is from Africa.

Quote:
Originally Posted by treemoni View Post
DNA tests only test one line of your family. So you are getting a 100% breakdown from one slice. You have two parents, who have parents, who also have parents etc. Also, whether native American shows up in your DNA depends on the sample. Who are they comparing the DNA against? My guess is not a person of color. Plus, culturally, indigenous people are less likely to test because they are often subject to studies without their permission. So there's that. I've heard from at least two sources that people who have ancient DNA are not going to show up in these tests because they haven't extracted DNA from a person with ancient DNA. Makes sense to me. So not only do you not have a big enough group to compare data to, but you also don't have a sample from the folks natives come from. Aaaaaand you're only testing a sliver of your lineage. That's a recipe for funny math...or paper genocide. This is why black people should do African Ancestry if they are going to test at all. At least they are testing people from your "race" and are honest about the fact that you are only getting results from one line. And finally, they don't want everyone to realize that race is a huge con and we're all a lot closer than we think.

At the end of the day, people of color need to accept that this society wasn't built for us. We need to figure out how to go from there and stop trying to get the government to recognise our humanity. This country was built on dehumanizing us.

We have all the internal mechanisms to discern who is family and who isn't. Most POC are spiritual people. We don't live and die by science and documents. Bloodlines are important, but "family" is way more than that. The European model of "family" doesn't value the same things we do, and that's okay. Different strokes for different folks.
Autosomal DNA can tell you about all of your lines, not just "one slice". Y DNA tells about a man's father's direct line and mitochondrial DNA tells about anyone's direct maternal line, male or female. A single distant ancestor may not show up in your DNA because you do not get bits of DNA from every ancestor. Some bits get edited out in the process of recombination. The more generations you go back, the greater the probability you have no DNA at all from a particular individual.

The ethnicity determination depends on who is included in the comparison database, which varies with which company does the testing. For example, 23AndMe recruited people whose families were from certain African countries.

https://www.23andme.com/africa-project/

https://blog.23andme.com/23andme-res...etics-project/

As all of the DNA testing companies add to their databases, the ethnicity results get fine tuned.

There is testing being done on ancient remains. First the tools to do had to be invented, then remains containing testable DNA identified. For example:

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ringia-genome/

and

https://www.newsweek.com/dna-10000-y...istory-1208975 and

and

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...a-7447152.html


https://www.ancient-origins.net/hist...007?nopaging=1

Yes, Native Americans in the US have been reluctant to have DNA testing done. That is certainly understandable. However, they share common ancestry with indigenous groups in Central and South America, and we do have comparison groups there.

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2...loitation-dna/

It's OK to have different cultural experiences. However, DNA links African Americans to Africa, not to some mysterious aboriginal population in North America.

Quote:
Originally Posted by treemoni View Post
"Black" was a label given to so-called "African-Americans" and we accepted it. That is why I'm saying black Natives...because when people think "Native American" they generally think of someone who looks like a Mexican. Also, "negro" is "black" in Spanish. This is how the colonizers described the people. If you ask black Native Americans who they are they will say they are "native", "indigenous", "aboriginal" or they will name their tribe. Most so-called African-Americans do not know what tribes they originated from because as the government report said in the late 1800s, they mixed with the "negro" (aka "black" aka continental African) and lost their culture. This happened because the men died in war, were taken captive or were exterminated in some other manner. During America's early days this was the result of multiple wars (that we are not taught about in schools). Then there were the lynchings. Today the extermination is the result of police killings or jail. So who does that leave black women to mate with? Men from other cultures. This has been going on since the beginning of time. Let's not forget child kidnappings. So if you remove a child from his or her home and get rid of their elders, there is nobody to pass on family history. So then you get to create the child's history for him via school.


You know, I was thinking about another piece of evidence that supports black Americans being native to this land. It is offensive to call Native Americans "redmen", but black people have always had nicknames that may describe a physical attribute, and it is not offensive. Like I mentioned before, there is "redbone" to describe women who are light-skinned or have red undertones to their skin. Men were called "Red". If you're AA, I'm sure you know somebody whose nickname is some variation of "blue-black". Other indigenous cultures do this as well. You might get called "flaca" if you are skinny or "gordo" if you are...portly. It is not an insult. And this traces back to Native American names for places. Oklahoma is named such because it means "red (okla) people (homa)" in Choctaw. Indigenous people are pretty blunt in this way. Same thing among African tribes. Names are a big deal and they have ceremonies to introduce a child's name. In Ghanaian culture you have a day name. So if you are a male born on a Friday your day name is "Kofi". Because I've known Nigerian people, I can usually tell if someone is Yoruba or Igobo based on their name. This impresses Nigerians because they think we are ignorant about such things. So the fact that AAs also have this culture of naming people based on physical attributes or some other characteristic dealing with their personality lends credence to the theory (which to me isn't a theory but I'll say so for argument's sake) that they are indigenous to America. But for some reason, those whom we think of as Native Americans, who are 9 times out of 10 not "red" at all, have a problem with it.


Black Americans were given Christian names because missionaries came over to convert people - a practice that is still being done today. I even posted part of a dialogue where one of the colonizers reported that Christians were only in America temporarily. Hmmm. I wonder why.
"Black" Native Americans are an admixture of African and indigenous Native Americans. If there are similar naming customs between African groups and African Americans how does that mean that African Americans are indigenous? It is more likely that it reflects African heritage.

Obviously not all Christians were in the Americas temporarily, so that comment would appear to be off base and irrelevant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2018, 10:15 PM
 
4,434 posts, read 4,424,023 times
Reputation: 3500
Quote:
Originally Posted by treemoni View Post
"Black" was a label given to so-called "African-Americans" and we accepted it. That is why I'm saying black Natives...because when people think "Native American" they generally think of someone who looks like a Mexican. Also, "negro" is "black" in Spanish. This is how the colonizers described the people. If you ask black Native Americans who they are they will say they are "native", "indigenous", "aboriginal" or they will name their tribe. Most so-called African-Americans do not know what tribes they originated from because as the government report said in the late 1800s, they mixed with the "negro" (aka "black" aka continental African) and lost their culture. This happened because the men died in war, were taken captive or were exterminated in some other manner. During America's early days this was the result of multiple wars (that we are not taught about in schools). Then there were the lynchings. Today the extermination is the result of police killings or jail. So who does that leave black women to mate with? Men from other cultures. This has been going on since the beginning of time. Let's not forget child kidnappings. So if you remove a child from his or her home and get rid of their elders, there is nobody to pass on family history. So then you get to create the child's history for him via school.


You know, I was thinking about another piece of evidence that supports black Americans being native to this land. It is offensive to call Native Americans "redmen", but black people have always had nicknames that may describe a physical attribute, and it is not offensive. Like I mentioned before, there is "redbone" to describe women who are light-skinned or have red undertones to their skin. Men were called "Red". If you're AA, I'm sure you know somebody whose nickname is some variation of "blue-black". Other indigenous cultures do this as well. You might get called "flaca" if you are skinny or "gordo" if you are...portly. It is not an insult. And this traces back to Native American names for places. Oklahoma is named such because it means "red (homa) people (okla)" in Choctaw. Indigenous people are pretty blunt in this way. Same thing among African tribes. Names are a big deal and they have ceremonies to introduce a child's name. In Ghanaian culture you have a day name. So if you are a male born on a Friday your day name is "Kofi". Because I've known Nigerian people, I can usually tell if someone is Yoruba or Igobo based on their name. This impresses Nigerians because they think we are ignorant about such things. So the fact that AAs also have this culture of naming people based on physical attributes or some other characteristic dealing with their personality lends credence to the theory (which to me isn't a theory but I'll say so for argument's sake) that they are indigenous to America. But for some reason, those whom we think of as Native Americans, who are 9 times out of 10 not "red" at all, have a problem with it.


Black Americans were given Christian names because missionaries came over to convert people - a practice that is still being done today. I even posted part of a dialogue where one of the colonizers reported that Christians were only in America temporarily. Hmmm. I wonder why.
Your mixing a bunch of things that have nothing to with the conservation.

"black" was not a popular term until the 60s, the term people of African decent were called Negro or color, Negro was the common term for black people in the English language, yes I know it origins is Spanish, spanish and Portuguese started exploring before the English they were first to sail around Africa and go Asia, they also stated colonization first and colonization most of Americas, and far more African slaves actually went to Latin American, they greatly influence the English which negro became the common term to describe people of African ancestry there even outdated maps calling the African interior Negroland.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File...ents,_1736.jpg

Color was a mix catogory we commonly associate this terms with blacks because blacks have been the largest minority in most of US history. But the term color has broader definition that includes any one not white as people of color. blacks, Natives, Asians were all group as "colored". The term "black" was populatized during the civil rights movement of the 60s. Black Americans choose this term or Negro or color. As today Negro and color are viewed as outdated and offensive give context.

In the 60s the term "black" popularized

https://youtu.be/2VRSAVDlpDI

Mexicans are mix with high degrees of native ancestry, some fully native, some Spanish, French, and most mixed, a few have African ancestry but I'm not going to get into that. The reason people think Native and think Mexican because they have Mexican with high degrees of native ancestry or fully. Fully Native Americans people look nothing like black people, their were native that were mix we black that have darker complexion but their no "black Native" as black people indigenous to North America.

Now saying some black Americans are mix with native Americans im not refuting, and I encourage people to celebrate all there ancestry, what I'm refuting is you trying to make it as significant of an ancestry to compare to amount of African ancestry black Americans have. Then marginalize the trans Atlantic slave trade. On average most black Americans are 60 to 90 percent African of that 10 to 40 percent maybe native or European or a combination of both. But your trying marginalized African ancestry which black Americans are predominantly.

Last edited by chiatldal; 11-28-2018 at 10:25 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2018, 10:22 PM
 
3,774 posts, read 2,042,891 times
Reputation: 5213
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
The DNA tells us about the genetic ancestry of modern African Americans, and that heritage is from Africa.

If DNA tells me about my identity, I guess I don't have one, then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2018, 10:29 PM
 
3,774 posts, read 2,042,891 times
Reputation: 5213
Black people have gone from Indian to Colored (a category that included everyone who wasn't white) to Negro to Black to African-American to...whatever term they will think up next to further separate us from our origins. We were called "black" because that's what "Negro" means. It's quite simple. And they changed it from "Negro" because someone realized we could go back to look at old maps and start figuring things out.

I feel good about where this discussion has taken me, and I'm not interested in debating it anymore. I know all this is making your head explode. Good luck sorting it out!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2018, 10:32 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,452 posts, read 28,322,096 times
Reputation: 29049
Quote:
Originally Posted by treemoni View Post
My educated guess is that most black Cubans have direct lines to Africa. Haiti as well.
Yes.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25876023

However, there are many other ethnicities in Cuba, too.

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups...out/background
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top