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.
Black Native Americans, before the erasure of their history, would have been known by their tribes. Like Nigerians are Hausa, Fulani, Yoruba, Igbo, etc. But to the majority of the world, they are simply "Nigerian". They bond here over a shared identity of being immigrants, but back home they are a tribal people. And they usually DON'T mix groups. AAs now bond over a history of oppression. There is no turning back now, but we can certainly claim our history and birthright to move forward.
Black Native Americans, before the erasure of their history, would have been known by their tribes. Like Nigerians are Hausa, Fulani, Yoruba, Igbo, etc. But to the majority of the world, they are simply "Nigerian". They bond here over a shared identity of being immigrants, but back home they are a tribal people. And they usually DON'T mix groups. AAs now bond over a history of oppression. There is no turning back now, but we can certainly claim our history and birthright to move forward.
"Black Native Americans" are an admixture of African American (who may also have European admixture) and Native American. They identify with the Native American tribe with which they are admixed.
You say, " ... we can certainly claim our history and birthright to move forward."
Why not accept that that history includes Africa and not some indigenous black "tribe" that has been denied by anthropologists for some reason? Frankly, if such a tribe or tribes existed anthropologists would be greatly interested in studying it. Some of them could build reputations on such research.
"Black Native Americans" are an admixture of African American (who may also have European admixture) and Native American. They identify with the Native American tribe with which they are admixed.
You say, " ... we can certainly claim our history and birthright to move forward."
Why not accept that that history includes Africa and not some indigenous black "tribe" that has been denied by anthropologists for some reason? Frankly, if such a tribe or tribes existed anthropologists would be greatly interested in studying it. Some of them could build reputations on such research.
Probably because it boosts his or her self esteem to believe this. It appears as several different mythologies Black Moors, Black Hebrews, Black Egyptians, Black Carthaginians, Black Samarians, Black Greeks, Black Romans, I'm surprised Black Vikings haven't come up. These are mythologies created by some Black people in the Americas because it takes away from the sting of the real history.
As soon as I find evidence linking me to Africa, I will. But I have not found that yet. I have firsthand, fairly recent experience with the government totally erasing my history and creating a new narrative for its benefit, so it is not out of the realm of possibility that they have done this before.
Quote:
Frankly, if such a tribe or tribes existed anthropologists would be greatly interested in studying it.
Some of them are still around. They are Chickasaw, Blackfoot, Choctaw, Lakota, Creek, etc etc. We just associate a different "look" with them.
Also, some anthropologists do know they truth. They would just like to keep their jobs and probably more importantly, their life. It's really not a laughing matter, but the consequences can be dire for telling the truth and going against the grain.
Yes, You have every right to claim your history in Africa and since you were brought here after the 1500s.
You have copies of documents from my family's history going back to the 1500s? PLEASE tell me where I can pick them up and how much you're charging for delivery. Thanks.
Because you repeated the same questions numerous times I had already answered them. You're just not grasping it you carry a small amount of Portuguese heritage from a great great grandfather you are a descendant but you aren't a Portuguese/Luso-American. This actually reminds me a lot of some Brazilians and other Latin Americans that take a commercially available DNA test and are estimated as sharing 3%-7% with various Jewish populations and become fixated on this one potential small percentage of their total heritage and totally disregard the rest of the components that are common in Brazilians such as Amerindinan, Sub Saharan African as well as mostly Iberian. As I've told you already I don't consider my relatives that are 1/2 Portuguese and ignorant of the culture, language etc. to be Portuguese/Luso-Americans they are descendants regardless of what they are mixed with. You can't make up for something you didn't get sure you can learn about the culture but you can't retro-actively acquire an upbringing you didn't get. As far as physical appearance it does matter if you look mixed you will be perceived as mixed. Sure you can claim the heritage and I've seen this before I can think of one specific example with someone with a great great grandfather of Portuguese heritage he learned the language somewhat familiarized himself with the culture and tried hard to blend in. He was respected loved by a lot of people but it is what it is. I'm not going to sugar coat it for those that have a problem with my frankness I don't care.
Would it be more logical if Brazilians and Americans focus on the majority of their ancestry then a small part? Does it matter if you're 3% or 78% of an ancestry? You can't retro-actively acquire a Portuguese upbringing but you can learn about the heritage of your family and your past which is biologically your heritage. It's about learning about your history, so it's obvious my history is Portuguese.Also they guy you know that has a Portuguese great-great grandfather, did you guys consider him Portuguese? And what did people consider him? So if someone is mixed with Portuguese like me and looks 100% African, and another person is mixed with Portuguese and looks mixed-race, what will you consider them? Would you consider them based on what they look like? I look 100% black would you consider me mixed-race and part Portuguese like someone who looks mixed-race?
So? Different genotypes can result in the same phenotype, and the books you have referenced were published way before anyone had an inkling about genetics and DNA.
Do you have any references that confirm modern African Americans have Micronesian or Melanesian DNA?
Also, Micronesians and Melanesians trace back to Asia, as do Native Americans. Phenotypic similarities are to be expected.
I'm not saying that "african Americans" are Melanesians or Micronesians...I'm talking more the appearance of the people that were seen but I just used those two groups as a point of reference. The only thing that I'm bringing out is that there a compelling argument that some people that were phenotypically given an "African" like description. It's already documented that Americans were shipped to Africa as slaves so I do think it deserves an ear. I still have some research to do on the topic but this argument is here to stay and will only get more traction. I'm just going on the evidence.
Last edited by Chevalier de Saint-George; 11-30-2018 at 05:44 PM..
As soon as I find evidence linking me to Africa, I will. But I have not found that yet. I have firsthand, fairly recent experience with the government totally erasing my history and creating a new narrative for its benefit, so it is not out of the realm of possibility that they have done this before.
Do your DNA. That will provide your evidence. How did the "government totally" erase your history?
Quote:
Some of them are still around. They are Chickasaw, Blackfoot, Choctaw, Lakota, Creek, etc etc. We just associate a different "look" with them.
Then if you are descended from "them" who are now "Chickasaw, Blackfoot, Choctaw, Lakota, Creek, etc etc" you should have NA DNA rather than African DNA.You will never know if you do not do the test.
Quote:
Also, some anthropologists do know they truth. They would just like to keep their jobs and probably more importantly, their life. It's really not a laughing matter, but the consequences can be dire for telling the truth and going against the grain.
What would be the point of such a conspiracy? If there were "Black Indians" before the arrival of Africans the anthropologists and their employers would get mucho cred in their field by researching it and publishing about it.
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.
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.
It's really not a laughing matter, but the consequences can be dire for telling the truth and going against the grain.
