The "We ain't no damn African, we's Indian" crowd is a fukking embarrassment

[BlackJesus]

We could have been here before Europeans and still have African origins. Idk why that's such an intellectually challenging concept for both sides to grasps.

It makes so much more sense business wise, logically, logistically and just via basic math.

Just because we were here doesn't make us "Indians." It makes us Africans who travelled and migrated.

It really is that simple.

I'm open to that idea. But the evidence is sketch as fukk. And basic math was, they bred us in order to increase the amount of people who could work on plantations. That's pretty much how the math worked. Let's show respect to the ancestors by not rewriting history because some nikkas are ashamed.

 

[Ty Daniels]

You know nobody ever thinks of the possibility we were on this earth before any of the continents proper existed,

Breh,

"Pangea" happened MILLIONS of years ago.

Anatomically Modern Humans, have been around for around 300+ Thousand Years.
The primary "Out Of Africa" Migrations ONLY happened 80-60 Thousand years ago.

The continents were already "Split" by then, by MILLIONS of years.

ALL of the actual evidence points to Black Americans being primarily derived from (RECENT) West-Central African Populations.

Humans who got to other parts of the world, got there by walking, sailing, and animal transports.

---

There is ZERO possible way that we are "Indians".
"Native American" peoples primarily got to America via Siberia and the Bering Strait (This is WELL documented).

If Black Americans are "Actually Indians", that means that our ancestors came to America from Cold AZZ Siberia, SMH.

We are Tropically Adapted People, with Tropical body plans, short torsos, longer Tibia bones etc...

We are NOT COLD Adapted, it is CLEAR.

---

If the "We Were Already Here" group were smarter they would abandon the "Indian" thing (Cherokee, Algonquin, Choctaw etc...) as those populations have CLEAR genetic ties to SIBERIA.

There are only three possible solutions for "We Were Already Here".

1. We were derived from "Precolumbian Africans".
2. We were derived from "Pacific Blacks" (Melanesian & Australoid groups). (Both groups are genetically distant from Black Americans, and Other African derived populations)
3. We have some "Special" Black American DNA signature that originated here, thus are not related to Africans or "Pacific Blacks" (yet somehow don't show any genetic evidence for this)


The only "Saving Grace" the "We were already Here" group has, is to locate a "Precolumbian African" group, that migrated here, SMH.

And any "Precolumbian African" group, that left a significant population here to become US, would have left LOTS of Evidence.

I don't rule out African contact with the Americas (Precolumbian), but the likelihood of a SIGNIFICANT/Numerous population being here is NOT Likely.

---

OCCAM'S Razor, and the actual evidence says we are primarily, the bi-product of West-Central Africans and the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.

Denying this is disrespectful to our Ancestors.

 

[BlackJesus]

Im not saying we not african, nor am i saying we not "indian." My point is always, if you think we were just sitting around Africa till the white man and asians learned to sail then you are a damn fool.

That's literally not what anyone is saying. Nikkas were not "sitting around". Will ya'll stop with these dumb straw man takes?

 

[HarlemHottie]

And they're all bums stop giving tbese people attention

Your mother's a bum.

Yall gon stop disrespecting people.

 

[HarlemHottie]

If the "We Were Already Here" group were smarter they would abandon the "Indian" thing (Cherokee, Algonquin, Choctaw etc...) as those populations have CLEAR genetic ties to SIBERIA.

I don't believe in this theory at all personally, but we have to be careful with DNA in the prehistoric period because phenotype doesn't always match genotype. For example, Luzia and Cheddar Man.

 

[Ty Daniels]

I don't believe in this theory at all personally, but we have to be careful with DNA in the prehistoric period because phenotype doesn't always match genotype. For example, Luzia and Cheddar Man.

That is why I placed my theoretical third option of a "Special Black American DNA" Signature.

I'm fully aware that phenotype doesn't always match genotype, as we have countless "Non African" purely "Eurasian" Blacks.

The issue is that any population that old, is going to be genetically distant from recent African derived populations.
As their ancestors left the African continent, 10's of thousands of years ago, and they would have developed unique genetic signatures that don't match African ones.

Black Americans genetically cluster with Africans, and other African derived populations. This is only possible being that we are derived from those populations. Otherwise we would not closely cluster.

 

[HarlemHottie]

Black Americans genetically cluster with Africans, and other African derived populations. This is only possible being that we are derived from those populations. Otherwise we would not closely cluster.

Agree, just putting it out there bc ppl are playing fast and loose with DNA results. Ie, why are they telling ppl they're Nigerian when Nigeria didn't exist at the time? And its a confederation of different tribes? Who were all moving around a lot during the era in question (fleeing falling empires, the wm, Arab expansion, etc)?

The reason why black ppl outside the comforting umbrella of academia don't believe yall is bc you're glossing over VERY important shyt.

 

[Diunx]

Wait like from India? this thread is too big, not gonna ready 16 pages, nikkas are now saying they from India?

 

[HarlemHottie]

Wait like from India? this thread is too big, not gonna ready 16 pages, nikkas are now saying they from India?

No, native Americans.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Question I have is why is it impossible to believe that as a result of colonization and slavery that the darker people of the Western Hemisphere have a complex ancestry that includes indigenous, African, and European to. Various degrees?

It isn't impossible, but there's no evidence to prove that hypothesis. Consider the tools we currently have at our disposal. It wouldn't take long to discover an African presence in the pre-Columbian 'New World'. Just a simple blood test in a recently-contacted tribe of indigenous people would do it.....

Fore people - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Premeditated]

We could have been here before Europeans and still have African origins. Idk why that's such an intellectually challenging concept for both sides to grasps.

It makes so much more sense business wise, logically, logistically and just via basic math.

Just because we were here doesn't make us "Indians." It makes us Africans who travelled and migrated.

It really is that simple.

So which African tribes migrated to the Americas first?

 

[Ty Daniels]

Agree, just putting it out there bc ppl are playing fast and loose with DNA results. Ie, why are they telling ppl they're Nigerian when Nigeria didn't exist at the time? And its a confederation of different tribes? Who were all moving around a lot during the era in question (fleeing falling empires, the wm, Arab expansion, etc)?

The reason why black ppl outside the comforting umbrella of academia don't believe yall is bc you're glossing over VERY important shyt.

I agree especially with the labeling of DNA markers using names of regions that didn't exist when the DNA was acquired.

There is a lot of work to be done. I'm from the older "Pro Black" generation where studying was important, reading books, attending lectures, etc..

But most importantly knowing your "Opponents" position(s), so you can better defend yours.

Many of the people in the modern "Conscious Community" solely rely on YouTube videos.
They watch videos of people who say the stuff they want to hear, and think because there are other people who share the same beliefs, that it is "True/Valid".

Part of this process is the willingness to be wrong, and potentially modify information when new data comes about that invalidates previous "beliefs/info".

The main goal should be getting to the truth, regardless of what that may be.
That includes abandoning old ideas, if there are compelling reasons to do so.

I want Our People to know as much truth as possible, I can admit that my approach is not always "receptive", and can come off as "combative" (something I have to work on).

It's easy to get irritated when, you see people lying, and abandoning logic.

 

[Thanos]

Anti-intellectualism is on the rise, and they weren't kidding.

 

[HarlemHottie]

Part of this process is the willingness to be wrong, and potentially modify information when new data comes about the invalidates previous "beliefs/info".

The main goal should be getting to the truth, regardless of what that may be. That includes abandoning old ideas, if there are compelling reasons to do so.

I want Our People to know as much truth as possible, I can admit that my approach is not always "receptive", and can come off as "combative" (something I have to work on).

It's easy to get irritated when, you see people lying, and abandoning logic.

Ofc, but let me say this. A huge facet of white supremacy is keeping us ignorant. Learned negroes turning around and calling our brothers "dumb nikkas" is NOT tf on code. I'm sure you can cite all the stats about the sorry state of bm education in this country. How dare you (rhet.) weaponize that against the victims you're supposedly advocating for? You can't hear their distress??

 

[Ty Daniels]

Ofc, but let me say this. A huge facet of white supremacy is keeping us ignorant. Learned negroes turning around and calling our brothers "dumb nikkas" is NOT tf on code. I'm sure you can cite all the stats about the sorry state of bm education in this country. How dare you (rhet.) weaponize that against the victims you're supposedly advocating for? You can't hear their distress??

I agree, that is also language that I would NEVER use. I stopped using that word when I was 17, when I started my "Conscious Journey".

On average I will drop info to folks when in discussions.

I typically only go with the "Ad-homs", when someone is clearly lying.

We've been having these conversations on here for a while.

I see some of the same posters making the same defunct claims (Melanesians/Pacific Blacks) (Algonquin, Choctaw) Etc...
Some have already been explained to as why these are not valid arguments.

At that point I just assume that they are purposefully lying.