Kalispel Youth

[img]http://memory.loc.gov/award/iencurt/ct07/ct07050v.jpg[/img]

http://civicmediaproject.org/works/performingarchive/ct07050 photo 1910 by Edward S. Curtis


Kalispel girl (The Kalispel are one of the three tribes of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flat-Head Nation)

[img]http://www.wwu.edu/depts/skywise/indian/kalispel.jpg[/img]

http://www.wwu.edu/depts/skywise/legends.html

http:///297026537918682705/?source_app=android

Portrait of She Came Spotted and an unidentified Native American Sioux woman, posed outside on a fur skin rug in front of a painted backdrop of a Lakota style Indian war record, Pine Ridge Agency, South Dakota. Photo: ca. 1890.

http://cdm15330.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15330coll22/id/24359/rec/340

Christopher Columbus called the people he met in the Americas "Indians", because they looked like the
Black inhabitants of India (who had migrated out of Africa over 45,000 years ago). He did not mistake the Americas for India. He did not call America "India".

Here is a picture of a Dravidian girl in India.

`Who built the Pyramids of Mexico? The same Pyramid building people that started in Africa. Many of us are still coming to terms with the
Black African identity of the Ancient Egyptian Pyramids, because our missionary-designed textbooks tell us that an assumed White Greek Man called Pythagoras discovered the mathematical formula for a triangle.

8 of the Best Ancient Ruins and Pyramids in Mexico
https://www./297026537917207859/

Diego Rivera mural in the National Palace, Mexico City
Depicts Zapotec and Mixtec culture in Oaxaca in pre-hispanic times.
https://www./297026537907930516/

The Black Indian man in the picture below looks so much like Eddie Murphy.

OURstory: Black Indians in America
http://electronicvillage..com/2007/05/manic-monday-red.html?m=1

[img]http://1.bp..com/_DmtdGP6kzMQ/Rll1lCGV2YI/AAAAAAAAATA/AjR-zup8Khc/s200/BlackIndian-5.jpg[/img]

https://www./292593307015372163/

jantavanta:
The Black Indian man in the picture below looks so much like Eddie Murphy.

OURstory: Black Indians in America
http://electronicvillage..com/2007/05/mani

jantavanta post=66980117:
`Who built the Pyramids of Mexico? The same Pyramid building people that started in Africa. Many of us are still coming to terms with the
Black African identity of the Ancient Egyptian Pyramids, because our missionary-designed textbooks tell us that an assumed White Greek Man called Pythagoras discovered the mathematical formula for a triangle.

8 of the Best Ancient Ruins and Pyramids in Mexico
https://www./297026537917207859/

Diego Rivera mural in the National Palace, Mexico City
Depicts Zapotec and Mixtec culture in Oaxaca in pre-hispanic times.
https://www./297026537907930516/

c-monday-red.html?m=1

[img]http://1.bp..com/_DmtdGP6kzMQ/Rll1lCGV2YI/AAAAAAAAATA/AjR-zup8Khc/s200/BlackIndian-5.jpg[/img]

https://www./292593307015372163/

One annoying thing about knowing black history, is what our predicament is now. No one can give a suitable answer to our downfall.[/color][color=#000000]

jantavanta:
An Emblem of America

http://pin.it/22xvJrC


The Americas had always been a land of Black People who sailed from West Africa over 50,000 years ago to become Black Native Americans. Only 5% of African slaves arrived in North America to join Black Native Americans and Black Native Europeans

You are confusing "black skin" a phenotypical expression that originates in Africa with the concept of "race" as it is understood today

Native Americans express black skin as a "Phenotype", their genetics however are completely separate from contemporary Africans separated by over 50,000 years of evolution and adaptation. They therefore are not contemporary Africans nor do they make up the majority of contemporary "blacks" who's genetics are predominantly tied to the that of their ancestors from Africa.

morpheus24:


You are confusing "black skin" a phenotypical expression that originates in Africa with the concept of "race" as it is understood today

Native Americans express black skin as a "Phenotype", their genetics however are completely separate from contemporary Africans separated by over 50,000 years of evolution and adaptation. They therefore are not contemporary Africans nor do they make up the majority of contemporary "blacks" who's genetics are predominantly tied to the that of their ancestors from Africa.

The concept of race is just a few hundreds of years old. It was created to justify the economic disenfranchisation of people who are not in a position of relative military strength.

The infamous one-drop rule that defines any American having a Black ancestor as Black, no matter how White they look is an example.

Many Black Native American Nations were classified as Negroes in order to deny them of Indigenous Peoples' privileges.

The link between Africa and the Americas has never been broken. The Ancient Egyptians visited there. Kanka Musa of Mali's brother travelled there.

Here is the cover of an article in the Ancient American journal about the Archeology of the Americas before Columbus.

https://www./297026537919243686/

jantavanta:


The concept of race is just a few hundreds of years old. It was created to justify the economic disenfranchisation of people who are not in a position of relative military strength.

I would say it was more or less an anthropological term that was hijacked to create hierichacal structures in the 19th and 20th century by the likes of Carlton Coon and his ilk.

jantavanta:

The infamous one-drop rule that defines any American having a Black ancestor as Black, no matter how White they look is an example.

Many Black Native American Nations were classified as Negroes in order to deny them of Indigenous Peoples' privileges.

The one drop rule in America applied to one drop of "contemporary" sub Saharan African DNA aka "negro" blood.

If these black skinned Native groups were classified as Negro that would be based on physical observation at best but would be scientifically erroneous.

All what these groups would need to do is take a simple DNA test to see if they cluster with other Native American groups irregardless of skin tone, with ZERO input from contemporary Sub Saharan African genetic material and they can claim without doubt their origins in the Americas.

jantavanta:

The link between Africa and the Americas has never been broken. The Ancient Egyptians visited there. Kanka Musa of Mali's brother travelled there.
Here is the cover of an article in the Ancient American journal about the Archeology of the Americas before Columbus.

https://www./297026537919243686/

I don't understand the relevance of your assertion here. The link between Africa and any other part of the world has not been broken either. There are physical adaptations that originated in Africa that are still present in many peoples around the world, call them "Africoid" if you wish, which ties them to the original migrants out of the continent however people can be differentiated on a genetic level. Phenotype correlates to Genotype but the relationship does not imply causation.

Black skinned native Americans were simply that, native Americans with physical adaptations that are similar to Phenotypes that still exist in Africa today.

jantavanta:
The Black Indian man in the picture below looks so much like Eddie Murphy.

OURstory: Black Indians in America
http://electronicvillage..com/2007/05/manic-monday-red.html?m=1

[img]http://1.bp..com/_DmtdGP6kzMQ/Rll1lCGV2YI/AAAAAAAAATA/AjR-zup8Khc/s200/BlackIndian-5.jpg[/img]

https://www./292593307015372163/

Has the man in the picture taken and posted his DNA results to determine if he is 100% genetically native American, if not then his assertion is dubious.

jantavanta:
Christopher Columbus called the people he met in the Americas "Indians", because they looked like the
Black inhabitants of India (who had migrated out of Africa over 45,000 years ago). He did not mistake the Americas for India. He did not call America "India".

Here is a picture of a Dravidian girl in India.

Please clarify, A Dravidian is indeed black or dark in terms of skin pigmentation, A Dravidian is however not a "contemporary" Sub-Saharan African genetically speaking and arguably would have distinguishable phenotypical representations that would cluster more closely with peoples of that region.

Here is how Europe saw the indigineous Canadians. All Black people with straight hair, wooly hair or kinky hair were once in Africa and their African genes have not "laundered" away even after 100,000 years.





The Out-of-Africans have shared values with us: a respect for Mother Earth. The Aborigines of Australia, will still have common shared values with those of us Currently-in-Africa: their genes could not be de-Africanized by forced adoptions to white families and forced interracial marriages.

https://www./297026537921393981/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JEAMzJDyZs

Africans, were the first Americans

jantavanta:

Here is how Europe saw the indigineous Canadians. All Black people with straight hair, wooly hair or kinky hair were once in Africa and their African genes have not "laundered" away even after 100,000 years.

The bolded simply shows how faulty your premise is and very low grasp of genetic variation in human beings. Here's why

1. "All peoples" that populate the world today migrated from founder populations in Africa. It is evident that there were different waves and back migrations as well that took place over 100,000 years. There is genetic evidence for this.

2. It cannot be ascertained what each of the waves of emigrants looked liked "exactly" but the first waves of peoples out of the continent closest "phenotypical" approximates would be that of "contemporary Africans" who did not leave the continent.

3.These populations that migrated out of the continent broke into different groups along the way, bottle-necked causing a lower variation of genetic makeup. They subsequently increased their populations loosing certain mutations and gaining others. This is refered to as genetic drift

4. Genetic drift, sexual selection, diet, climate all contribute to changes in geno and pheno types which express themselves in different levels of variation from the height of a human to skin color, hair texture, cranio-metry e.t.c

5. Today Africa has the most diverse genetic material between two people than amongst them which is why they remain the reservoir of human diversity compared to other groups outside of Africa. Every other group including your "black" indians have lesser differences between each other which butresses the point that i.e They are "technically" not the same as "contemporary" Africans because of this even though they retained certain physical adaptations that were probably beneficial to them or did not "drift".

6. "Every single group" of people outside sub Saharan Africa also inherited genes from "other" types of archaic Humans that existed outside of Africa. The only group known to have these archaic genes in small numbers in Africa are the Masai peoples and has been explained by back migrations into Africa. _Source Journal of Human genetics.

You are concentrating on external factors such as physical appearance and social constructs causing you to miss the scientific realities of what you are saying. These were the same premises that drove eurocentric scientist from two centuries ago who were biased which is why most of their works though informative were pseudo scientific at best.

Case in point,, the following pics of individuals below,the Andaman islanders share a physical resemblance to contemporary Africans but are genetically Asians. How is that they are physically similar to Africans and 100% genetically different from Africans yet retain African phenotypes.? Please explain

jantavanta:


The Out-of-Africans have shared values with us: a respect for Mother Earth. The Aborigines of Australia, will still have common shared values with those of us Currently-in-Africa: their genes could not be de-Africanized by forced adoptions to white families and forced interracial marriages.

Social and psychological arguments that are part of human socialization and constructs. I get it you are mad at "white people for the all the evils they have committed, that however should never mask or mis-interpret what is fact. Data is data and when inferred upon with bias do you get people who use it to their advantage.

Horus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JEAMzJDyZs

Africans, were the first Americans

Point 1: Horus that video is old , I would advise you to stop using it. Science has moved on from that point.
Point 2: The skull in the video is dated btw 9-12,000 years ago, well within the time frame that native Americans entered North America.
Point 3: The terminology mongoloid, caucasoid and negroid have been reserved for cranio metric anthropology and help to determine a skulls shape and "possible" region they emanate from.

Point 4: The oldest fossil found in the Americas "Kennewick man" is dated about 9000 years ago similar to the one in the video. He clusters genetically with native Americans and I would guess so would the skull in the video if the genetic test is taken. The extent of Genetic testing was not available at the time of that video.

Point 5 Phenotype is correlated to genotype but it does not imply that one causes the other. I hope you understand what that means?

morpheus24:


Point 1: Horus that video is old , I would advise you to stop using it. Science has moved on from that point.
Point 2: The skull in the video is dated btw 9-12,000 years ago, well within the time frame that native Americans entered North America.
Point 3: The terminology mongoloid, caucasoid and negroid have been reserved for cranio metric anthropology and help to determine a skulls shape and "possible" region they emanate from.

Point 4: The oldest fossil found in the Americas "Kennewick man" is dated about 9000 years ago similar to the one in the video. He clusters genetically with native Americans and I would guess so would the skull in the video if the genetic test is taken. The extent of Genetic testing was not available at the time of that video.

Point 5 Phenotype is correlated to genotype but it does not imply that one causes the other. I hope you understand what that means?

Why are you not able to name the skull in the video?. This is the skull of "Luzia", a Woman. The archaeologist who found these remains was Annette Laming-Emperaire, and together with other colleagues, after dating, she found that this woman lived in south-central Brazil some 11,500 years ago. The "Kennewick man" is dated only 9000 years ago. Can you give me the exact name of the method used for the Genetic testing of The "Kennewick man"?. And also the exact year when this testing was done? Post it here on Nairaland, please!

Horus:


Why are you not able to name the skull in the video?.

Cause the video does that and I also mentioned the dating in my previous comment.

Horus:

This is the skull of "Luzia", a Woman. The archaeologist who found these remains was Annette Laming-Emperaire, and together with other colleagues, after dating, she found that this woman lived in south-central Brazil some 11,500 years ago. The "Kennewick man" is dated only 9000 years ago. Can you give me the exact name of the method used for the Genetic testing of The "Kennewick man"?. And also the exact year when this testing was done? Post it here on Nairaland, please!

The skull in your video is dated within the time frame of Asian migrations into the new world. It is +- 2000 years before Kennewick man.

The controversy of the cranio-facial metrics of Luzia is where you are hinging your "negroid" identity. This is the reason mentioned in my previous comment about the strict use of cranio classifications. Once upon a time an Aboriginal Australian was regarded as a "negroid" when in fact his genetics are not the same as a contemporary African who was also categorized as such.

Kennewick man's haplogroups will be matched with the genetic data of modern native American populations and if it clusters then he was most likely of the same descent as present day Asian populations that migrated into the new world. The study was done by a group geneticists at the University of Copenhagen and published in journal format. You can find additional info below

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14625

morpheus24:


Cause the video does that and I also mentioned the dating in my previous comment.



The skull in your video is dated within the time frame of Asian migrations into the new world. It is +- 2000 years before Kennewick man.

The controversy of the cranio-facial metrics of Luzia is where you are hinging your "negroid" identity. This is the reason mentioned in my previous comment about the strict use of cranio classifications. Once upon a time an Aboriginal Australian was regarded as a "negroid" when in fact his genetics are not the same as a contemporary African who was also categorized as such.

Kennewick man's haplogroups will be matched with the genetic data of modern native American populations and if it clusters then he was most likely of the same descent as present day Asian populations that migrated into the new world. The study was done by a group geneticists at the University of Copenhagen and published in journal format. You can find additional info below

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14625

When did I used the word "negroid" in my post?, show me by using quote, I simply posted the title of the video as it is on Youtube
The person who use the word negroid is on the video, he is one the world leading forensic expert.

Once upon a time an Aboriginal Australian was regarded as a "negroid"

That is an African feature on the video, not an Aboriginal Australian

Horus:


When did I used the word "negroid" in my post?, show me by using quote, I simply posted the title of the video as it is on Youtube
The person who use the word negroid is on the video, he is one the world leading forensic expert.

So what is the purpose of posting the video if not in support of the subject of this thread? If "negroid" in the video is not a synonym for "African" then what is the Video or Horus implying, please clarify.

Horus:

That is an African feature on the video, not an Aboriginal Australian

Point 1 Its a "reconstruction" of a skull not an exact replica of what that person would have looked like. In simple terms, its an estimation.

Point 2. The skull shape of luzia falls in line with cranio facial adaptations of australian aboriginals, melanesians, papau new guineans as well as Contemporary Africans ( see pic below in order of ethnicity)all who have once upon a time been categorized under the "negroid" cranio metric designation even though they are genetically different people. See Journal of human genetics for further details on genetics of the aforementioned peoples.

Point 3. The first 3 peoples I mentioned above are Asians and their genetics cluster with people in and around that area regardless of phenotype. Their proximity to the new world also lends credence to the possibility that they reached the new world as well thousands of years ago.

Point 4. Lumping people who look similar to each other round the world under the category "black" or "African" is very simpleton and does not advance science or knowledge in the right direction. They are often used to advance an agenda. All people round the world share ancestory to populations that emanated from Africa, it doesn't mean they are the same people that populate sub saharan Africa because they are melinated.

morpheus24:

So what is the purpose of posting the video if not in support of the subject of this thread? If "negroid" in the video is not a synonym for "African" then what is the Video or Horus implying, please clarify.




Point 1 Its a "reconstruction" of a skull not an exact replica of what that person would have looked like. In simple terms, its an estimation.

Point 2. The skull shape of luzia falls in line with cranio facial adaptations of australian aboriginals, melanesians, papau new guineans as well as Contemporary Africans ( see pic below in order of ethnicity)all who have once upon a time been categorized under the "negroid" cranio metric designation even though they are genetically different people. See Journal of human genetics for further details on genetics of the aforementioned peoples.

Point 3. The first 3 peoples I mentioned above are Asians and their genetics cluster with people in and around that area regardless of phenotype. Their proximity to the new world also lends credence to the possibility that they reached the new world as well thousands of years ago.

Point 4. Lumping people who look similar to each other round the world under the category "black" or "African" is very simpleton and does not advance science or knowledge in the right direction. They are often used to advance an agenda. All people round the world share ancestory to populations that emanated from Africa, it doesn't mean they are the same people that populate sub saharan Africa because they are melinated.

So what is the purpose of posting the video if not in support of the subject of this thread? If "negroid" in the video is not a synonym for "African" then what is the Video or Horus implying, please clarify.

Now I believe you just want to argue just for the fun of arguing: What is the title of the thread?

Title of the thread - Africans Were The First People Of The Ancient Americas

Title of the video - Africans, were the first Americans

You can clearly see that the video is in support of the subject of this thread

Point 1 Its a "reconstruction" of a skull not an exact replica of what that person would have looked like. In simple terms, its an estimation.

No, it is not a "reconstruction" of the skull, the skull is already there, Its a "reconstruction" of the facial feature of what the person looked like according to this particular skull. They explain it at 7:15 on the video

Point 3. The first 3 peoples I mentioned above are Asians and their genetics cluster with people in and around that area regardless of phenotype. Their proximity to the new world also lends credence to the possibility that they reached the new world as well thousands of years ago.

Point 4. Lumping people who look similar to each other round the world under the category "black" or "African" is very simpleton and does not advance science or knowledge in the right direction. They are often used to advance an agenda. All people round the world share ancestory to populations that emanated from Africa, it doesn't mean they are the same people that populate sub saharan Africa because they are melinated.

Baseless claims with no source or no links provided and no connection with the video that I posted

Horus:


Now I believe you just want to argue just for the fun of arguing: What is the title of the thread?

Title of the thread - Africans Were The First People Of The Ancient Americas

Title of the video - Africans, were the first Americans

You can clearly see that the video is in support of the subject of this thread

Thank you for clarifying

Horus:

No, it is not a "reconstruction" of the skull, the skull is already there, Its a "reconstruction" of the facial feature of what the person looked like according to this particular skull. They explain it at 7:15 on the video

Semantics my dear boy, A reconstruction of a skull includes facial features.

Horus:

Baseless claims with no source or no links provided and no connection with the video that I posted

Hahahaha so your video of a skull reconstruction....ooh sorry "facial feature" reconstruction is solid evidence. Don't make me laugh in Hausa


Morpheus' reason for claim.:
1.The title of the thread is misleading.
2.If the OP states that "Africans were the first in the new world" What does he mean by African? Does he mean black skinned people? or "Contemporary Africans" "Africans from 50,000 years ago?
2. If the OP means contemporary sub saharan Africans then he is implying these Africans in the Americas made it to the new world before everyone else, if so, their genetics would tie with that of contemporary Africans today Where is his evidence?
3. If these "africans left Africa 50,000" years ago it means they became something else and their genetics would tie with other peoples of close proximity to them regardless of phenotype

Morpheus' contentions:
Many Asian groups have Africoid or if you like "negroid" phenotypical traits that are similar to "Contemporary Africans" of today e.g papau new guineans, Andaman islanders, Philipino negritos, Australina Aborigenes, Melanasian peoples including Figians. They inherited these traits from their ancestors that first left Africa 50,000-60,000 years ago, howeve this does not make them African otherwise everyone else that left Africa should be considered "African".
These Asia or Austrolesian groups cluster genetically with other groups around their area. They do not cluster with today's African people genetically. That makes them non African populations

4. Evidence presented to support this assertions.

https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(07)60645-4

In the search criteria when you pull above page type in Native American, oceanic peoples, sub Saharan African, Papau new Guinean.

The result will give you a plethora of genetic information on peoples of the new world and Africa.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpE7-sQos9M


Pics of Mtdna dispersion round the world spanning 150,000 years showing genetic lineages

pics of non- African peoples with Africoid features.

Horus:



Baseless claims with no source or no links provided and no connection with the video that I posted

You see why I say you should stop using old data to bolster your point and understand that the better we get at technology the more we can accurately pinpoint findings.

Genetic testing was just recently (november 2018)o your luzia fossil. it was discovered that she clusters genetically with "Asian/mongoloid" populations from an early peoples known as the 'clovis" culture.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181109155524.htm

SMH Horus!

morpheus24:

Thank you for clarifying





Semantics my dear boy, A reconstruction of a skull includes facial features.





Hahahaha so your video of a skull reconstruction....ooh sorry "facial feature" reconstruction is solid evidence. Don't make me laugh in Hausa


Morpheus' reason for claim.:
1.The title of the thread is misleading.
2.If the OP states that "Africans were the first in the new world" What does he mean by African? Does he mean black skinned people? or "Contemporary Africans" "Africans from 50,000 years ago?
2. If the OP means contemporary sub saharan Africans then he is implying these Africans in the Americas made it to the new world before everyone else, if so, their genetics would tie with that of contemporary Africans today Where is his evidence?
3. If these "africans left Africa 50,000" years ago it means they became something else and their genetics would tie with other peoples of close proximity to them regardless of phenotype

Morpheus' contentions:
Many Asian groups have Africoid or if you like "negroid" phenotypical traits that are similar to "Contemporary Africans" of today e.g papau new guineans, Andaman islanders, Philipino negritos, Australina Aborigenes, Melanasian peoples including Figians. They inherited these traits from their ancestors that first left Africa 50,000-60,000 years ago, howeve this does not make them African otherwise everyone else that left Africa should be considered "African".
These Asia or Austrolesian groups cluster genetically with other groups around their area. They do not cluster with today's African people genetically. That makes them non African populations

4. Evidence presented to support this assertions.

https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(07)60645-4

In the search criteria when you pull above page type in Native American, oceanic peoples, sub Saharan African, Papau new Guinean.

The result will give you a plethora of genetic information on peoples of the new world and Africa.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpE7-sQos9M


Pics of Mtdna dispersion round the world spanning 150,000 years showing genetic lineages

pics of non- African peoples with Africoid features.

I believe the OP will have made things easier if he was arguing for the presence of the black man all over the world. instead of being too afrocentric in his assertion. One thing I want to ask you sir is what makes up the phenotypic and genotypic trait of man is it inate or environmental induced? The reason for my question is you keeping treating each independent of each other of which I quite understand they are, according to science. But dont you see at some point they kind of overlap or maybe one is a preceedent to another?

hayoholla:



I believe the OP will have made things easier if he was arguing for the presence of the black man all over the world. instead of being too afrocentric in his assertion.

I believe the OP is propelled by the injustices and the omissions of "African" contributions to World as propagated by the "white" mainstream and powers that be. I can understand his motivations which is why an Afrocentric posture is not necessarily bad but it can fall victim to the same assumptions as those who are Eurocentrics. The best approach is the observe data objectively without bias and we end up finding out the turth of the matter.

hayoholla:

One thing I want to ask you sir is what makes up the phenotypic and genotypic trait of man is it inate or environmental induced? The reason for my question is you keeping treating each independent of each other of which I quite understand they are, according to science. But dont you see at some point they kind of overlap or maybe one is a preceedent to another?

1.Genetics or DNA are the building blocks of any human or living thing for that matter, therefore any journey to understanding humans should start at this level.
2. DNA is both both innate and influenced by our environment. There are environmental circumstances that put pressure on us which cause mutations in our DNA coding and is passed on to the next generation either as a benefit or detriment. An example is the sickle cell Gene that is pronounced in West Africans. It is both a gene and environmentally derived. The mutation has been postulated to be the body' reaction and defense against Malaria.


So to answer your question phenotype and genotype correlate but it does not imply that one caused the other. In other words there a many other variables that must be considered.

Those who are yet to know the past influence of the black man are those who haven't taken time to research and ask pertinent questions.

OP you should sign up on Say It Africa! Social Networking. You could get a paid moderator position @ www.sayitafrica.com

Luminee:
Those who are yet to know the past influence of the black man are those who haven't taken time to research and ask pertinent questions.

OP you should sign up on Say It Africa! Social Networking. You could get a paid moderator position @ www.sayitafrica.com

Thanks.

I will look it up.

Yes Op, Dr. Ivan Van Sertima Guyanese-born associate professor of African Studies is amongst the research group that later debunks one of histories great falsities, their assumption that Africans are always stagnant is proven to be false.

Africans are the first people to arrive on every continent outside Africa.

Africans are said to be associated with the "Olmec" an ancient civilization that existed during the Egyptian dynasty. There are massive statues that were found in South America known as the "Collossal Heads" that depict black African warriors in full regalia. Some historians see their connection with the Mande people.

All the evidence puts Africans migrating to and fro the Americas, Europe and even Asia before the birth of Christopher Columbus. Here the essence of Tempest is rightfully redeemed from the clutches of Mungo Park’s allegorical assertions and considered now and in antiquity, one of (if not) the oldest trading post in the world.

For more information here are some books written by Dr. Ivan Van Sertima himself.

They Came Before Columbus: The African Presence in Ancient America

African Presence in Early America
Blacks in Science: Ancient and Modern (Journal of African Civilizations)

African Presence in Early Europe (Journal of African Civilizations)
African Presence in Early Asia

[flash=250,250]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk9IqMz6IDs[/flash]

[flash=250,250]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMg-79AzbI4[/flash]

An indigenous American culture enthusiast and have great interest in its reasearch; about five years research makes me come up with these findings.

Without a shadow of doubt, there are distinct and undeniable found connection between the indigenous Americans with much of mainland African culture.

There are various theories to explain this, one of the leading theories is an African viewpoint, indigenous Americans are said to have come from the line of the Olmecs.

According to Jose Melar, the Olmecs are supposed to have migrated from Africa (is comprehensively addressed in the “Olmec alternative origin...” documents).

Again, modern day African scholars identify Olmecs with the Mandé people.

The true chronology of human history has it that everyone starts in Africa and later migrate to all the four corners of the globe.

Africans are the first people to arrive in the Americas populate and build communities.

Africans are the first people to arrive in Asia populate and build communities.

Africans are the first people to arrive in Australasia populate and build communities.

Africans are the first people to arrive in Europe populate and build communities.

Africans are the first ever Eskimos

Conclusion, every single ethnic group on our planet are a product of the first generation of humans; the first generation of humans are Africans.

Any other theory or hypothesis in living memory does not stand up to these simple truths.

jantavanta:

Uros People of Peru, South America



http://www.peruadventurestours.com/en/puno/puno_uros_floating_island_tour.html

This skin tone probably comes from their Aboriginal Australian ancestors , we Africans know that we have nothing to do with the American continent. Black Americans are the biggest hypocrites they complain about cultural appropriation yet they try to steal the Native American identity , not just the culture , the entire identity. Disgusting slaves.


A DNA Search for the First Americans Links Amazon Groups to Indigenous Australians:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-search-first-americans-links-amazon-indigenous-australians-180955976/

NileValley:


This skin tone probably comes from their Aboriginal Australian ancestors , we Africans know that we have nothing to do with the American continent. Black Americans are the biggest hypocrites they complain about cultural appropriation yet they try to steal the Native American identity , not just the culture , the entire identity. Disgusting slaves.


A DNA Search for the First Americans Links Amazon Groups to Indigenous Australians:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-search-first-americans-links-amazon-indigenous-australians-180955976/

When you say "Black Americans" have nothing to do with the American continent I am not sure your statement is all that correct. Africans who were brought to the Americas at the same time Europeans settled in the Americas heavily influenced the racial makeup of today's "Americans" as a continent, therefore they have had a strong influence on the cultural, linguistic and genetic identity of the people that inhabit the Americas today.

The remaining Indigenous or Native Americans exist in smaller pockets today and their gene pool has been diluted and spread across the peoples they encountered i.e Europeans and Africans to create the new so called racial identity of today's "Latinos" or "Hispanics". The African inclusion is however downplayed a lot in this new racial makeup due to the origins of the Africans as slaves and thus the anger within the Black American groups so in a way these AA are justified in their anger and their reason for propping up the African identity within the Americas.