Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Breaking News (or not): Science proves that Black Africans are Black Africans

Many of us may recall the so-called DNA result announcement of Pharaoh Tut by mainstream news outlets.

 Discovery channel aired a documentary, National Geographic devoted a cover story, CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS (MSM) all broke the story in dramatic breaking news urgency.

The news:

Pharaoh Tutankhamen -- also commonly known as King Tut -- is of European ancestry.

Euro-Egyptologist jumped for joy. They now had the definitive proof to challenge and silence Afrocentrist and their so-called fantasy claims. The founders and builders of arguably the greatest civilization our world has ever seen were Europeans.

There was one small -- ok, one Grand Canyon sized problem -- the DNA test was never a DNA test. Come again? Apparently, some European "scientist" watched a documentary on Tut and believed he saw a leaked DNA sequence belonging to Tut. Based on the sequence he saw on Tut he erroneously (non-scientifically) concluded that the DNA markers matched Anglo-Saxon Europeans.

Based on this "science" MSM sounded the trumpets and shouted down from Mount Zion. But, facts are stubborn things and no amount of wishful thinking or pseudo science can erase them or diminish their legitimacy.

The authentic and scientific DNA test results of King Tut and Ramses III were announced in December 2013:

Did you hear a peep from MSM?

Nope. Neither had I.

Surprise, Surprise the results revealed that these African men were, African men. In fact, the results revealed they were related to Africans in sub-Sahara (western and southern) Africa.

The ethnic or racial make up should not matter. Ancient Egyptian and other just as important Nile Valley cultures in science, medicine, theology, agriculture, philosophy, advanced math, architecture etc. helped shape modern civilization. They were giants among giants. Black, white, Asian or otherwise, we should be just celebrating their brilliance.

But the racial component that does matter in this conversation: Why have Eurocentric anthropologist, archeologist and historians worked so hard erase or co-opt civilization contributions of Black Africans? In other words, why have they attempted to take Egypt and Nile Valley civilizations out of Africa?

My personal theories aside, I have seen this movie (and I mean movie) before:

Jazz is a music birthed by the unique history of the black experience in America, yet Benny Goodman not Duke Ellington, Count Basie or Cab Calloway was crowned "King of Swing"

Elvis Presley was often accused in the south by true blooded rednecks as playing "nigger music" yet he was bestowed  the title of "King of Rock"

Even though Joe Frazier beat the "Greatest" Muhammad Ali and earned the real world heavyweight championship title, he has no statue in his hometown Philly. This boxing statue honor belongs to Rocky Balboa -- a Hollywood created character. The fictional Mr.Balboa won the title by defeating a Hollywood version of Muhammad Ali.

All of the soul/disco dancing of Soul Train dancers, James Brown and Michael Jackson (he later insisted on being called the "King of Pop") were not enough for them to become the King of Dance/Disco. After one movie, John Travolta became the king of the dance floor.

Sisters have been rocking braids since the word go; however, after one movie (there's that Hollywood image making machine) starring Bo Derek sporting braids and now it becomes the Bo Derek look.

Even in Africa the King of the Jungle -- Tarzan -- had to be white!

The biggest insult to injury and the biggest slap in the face occurs when in our attempts to rescue or reclaim our role in history we are labeled as being obsessed with race. Picture that...






8 comments:

  1. This stuff is just so lost on me. Folks want to own it like they did it, white folks and black folks, and it seems like each go picking and choosing.

    White folks: We Euros molded the world. We were kings and queens. Emperors. We built everything!

    No you didn't! You were damn peasants, like the other 99.9% of folks, most surviving in caves and huts until Greece rose up, and like it or not your ancestors came from Africa! You. Are. African. Just with less melanin.

    Black folks: We created the greatest civilization. We were kings and queens. We're the rightful heirs. We're royalty.

    No you're not! There were rulers, then there were the other 99.9% of people, most of whom were slaves who literally killed themselves building cities and monuments for the rulers, and the rest of whom lived in huts further south.

    Mitochondrial DNA shows that our--all of us, as humans--ancestor was a common woman, probably black as night, in the heart of Africa. We spread out as a species to survive, with some staying behind. Some head down Australia way (Aboriginals). Some head up and stopped (Northern Africans/Middle Eastern). Some branched north and northeast (Asians). Some branched into the colder north (Caucasians). Some head over the land bridge into the Americas (Natives, Mayans, etc).

    "Anglo" people come far, far after that fact. They were Germanic tribesmen previous, most likely coming up from the Middle East, with dark skin, nappy, knotted hair, and needing to survive.

    Maybe this history matters to you, and I'm not trying to break your chops over it. Ah salute. But the DNA evidence is indisputable; but I mean for the human race, not just Tut's rich ass. We hail from Africa, branched out some 200k years ago, and here we are.

    The African people were giants. Full stop. They were the first people on the planet. We being alive today is due to their intelligence, survival skills, communal abilities, and adaptability to a harsh, unforgiving climate.

    We were there in Africa for many thousands upon thousands upon thousands of years before situations forced some of us out. It was early man's "giant" status that allowed us to get to that point.

    If that's something of pride for black people, I won't knock it. And if that's something white people want to steal away, they need to focus-up in school. It's their history too, the dumbasses. But claiming these accomplishments as one's own, for any "side" or "race," seems to defeat what they did.

    As to American history: Majority of white folks. Of course Elvis is the king. One of the unfortunate side effects of 200k years of change: We're still inherently tribal but recognize that based on skin tone; culture.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Typo correction: "branched out some 200k years ago" should be 60k. Those are the estimates of when we started to migrate out of Africa, based on DNA, archeological and climate evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Josh...I agree with most of your point and premise. African history does belong to all of us and for one racial or should I say ethnic group to high-jack another's history is very tribal.

    In saying that, I must say it is very important for (black)Africans in Africa and the diaspora to reclaim our proper position in history. The inferiority status was thrust upon this group and it was taught for centuries around the world that this was a cursed group. The curse of being descendants of Ham was used in order to enslave and oppress blacks.

    To refute the lies, misconceptions and myths, it is important to teach history from a non-Eurocentric prospective. I remember being taught in history class that people with black skin never had any civilizations worth noting.

    As far as being a member of the peasant class, similar to here in the USA, it is the peasant class that made civilizations on the Nile great and not just the 1% leadership.

    Yes, you had Kings and Queen royals and their royal courts; but among the peasants you had: masons, scribes, ship builders, sophisticated farmers that used advanced irrigation techniques -- including cultivation of crops, pottery makers, scribes, linen makers (they used spin and weaving techniques), wine and beer makers, warriors and soldiers, artist, bakers, teachers, scientist etc.

    Just read this about ancient merchants:

    "Egypt was one of the wealthiest countries in the ancient world. Egyptian merchants – who were more like traders – carried products such as gold, papyrus made into writing paper or twisted into rope, linen cloth, and jewelry to other countries. In exchange, they brought back cedar and ebony wood, elephant tusks, panther skins, giraffe tails for fly whisks, and animals such as baboons and lions for the temples or palaces."

    I would be honored to be a descendent of the great peasant class of Egypt!!!

    As far as harsh conditions, here is what the Greek named Herodotus (father of history for Greeks) stated:

    "Herodotus and Diodorus wrote describing an almost Eden-like land where farmers had but to drop seed and their crops would spring up with barely any toil. "The majority merely scatter their seed, turn in their herds and flocks upon the fields, and use them to trample down the seed, and after four or five months the peasants return and harvest the crop." Diodorus came from a land where the soil was rocky and harvests meager, so Egypts valley must have truly seemed like a blissful field. The Egyptians gave praises to Hapy, deity of the Nile, when the Inundation was just right, not to little and not too much, but this practical people knew that their crops would not grow by themselves. Hard work was needed."

    Of course everything and everyday life was far from being perfect or as free as our present time (I hope!?) Egypt/Kemet and other Nile civilizations -- including the peasants -- were light years ahead of the ancient world.

    ReplyDelete
  4. My own oops moment: perspective not prospective...lol

    ReplyDelete
  5. The harsh conditions I'm speaking about are the conditions which forced early humans to flee Africa some 60,000 years ago -- thousands of years before Greece arose.

    I kinda skipped and jumped in my ramblings up there, not wanting to offend sensibilities if you or your readers happen to be religious and don't subscribe totally to the evolutionary case I was getting at. The evidence shows that early humans had it tough, especially when the climate changed dramatically. Not only were we all fighting for food and shelter, but, in all likelihood, we also had competition with our cousins whom we killed off and became the top rung of the great ape ladder. And not to mention that there were no real "laws" back then pre-civilization. We were up against it.

    Egypt and everything else would come many thousands of years after that. And that is certainly African history, not Euro history, and should remain such. Because it is objectively true.

    I also didn't get into what you consider to be a "black" African, since it is likely that Egyptians were the same tone they are today, give or take a shade. Then again, they could have been much darker. (But there isn't much of a way to tell definitively. For example, Tut carries a certain genetic marker, but that could be one of many. So it gets into an area I'm not comfortable with.) It's not a tree I wanted to bark up. I know skin tone is something that goes beyond white and black. A lot of black folks I know have heated stances on if mixed people should be considered black, if lighter-skinned people should be considered black, even if green or blue-eyed blacks should be considered black. So I was avoiding that. And some of the nastiest racial slurs I've ever heard were from lighter-skinned people to darker-skinned people within the same race. But that's getting off topic.

    Those civilizations were more advanced. They were the first; they were great. What I meant by throwing out there that people were peasants and slaves and not royalty wasn't to dismiss their efforts. It's a long shot that I or anyone else in a 35-state radius shares blood with royalty. Yet I've heard a lot of people, white, black and otherwise, claim that they're a race of royalty. That they're somehow better. So I was pointing out that they're not.

    For instance, it would be like our descendants in 2,000 years, standing in a new nation talking about America, saying "We were Presidents and First Ladies!" Nah, they're most likely the descendants of common folk. Plumbers, electricians, teachers, techs, etc. And that's still something to be proud of! A player is a player; you don't have to be the quarterback. But I personally find it silly when people equate themselves with the very TOP notch on the totem pole. Know what I mean? There should be enough pride in being a peasant, and I think we agree there. Not everyone does, though. Some talk it up like they wore the crown or oversaw the nation-building.

    I agree with you about getting that damn "Ham" stuff and other culture-specific perspectives out of the mainstream. Keep that stuff out of schools. It's all rooted in religious nonsense of a majority race looking to justify cruelty. I'm a huge proponent of teaching objective facts and only objective facts when it comes to subjects like history and science. We don't see any alternative, spun versions of math in the classroom. Yet people have been getting away with it for years teaching opinion and misconceptions and outright lies as facts to children.

    That religion is damn powerful stuff. In my opinion, it becomes very ironic. The African people, as early pre-civilization humans, were intelligent enough to survive, to learn to speak, and to build tools and shelter and clothing. Yet they felt so utterly alone in the universe that stories were able to eventually mold the world more than anything, continuing to have more influence than any other factor to this day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know caucasions are decendents Of exiled african albinos...that had to migrate due to persecution... While soujorning through the middle East and eventually Asia.. they encountered africana who had migrated out Of áfrica earlier and both albino and darker african crossbread..

      Delete
  6. I agree with much of your opinion on evolution, history and religion. Additionally, to piggy-back on your observation on how people claim royalty: I define that as over-compensation.

    It does not make it right, but when a people have been collectively written out of history they often feel compelled to over-exaggerate their ties to the past.

    You state:

    "I also didn't get into what you consider to be a "black" African, since it is likely that Egyptians were the same tone they are today, give or take a shade. Then again, they could have been much darker."

    Just as America skin tone has changed drastically in the last 500 hundred years (from the Native American to European to European/African to our current browning of America trend). Ancient Nile Valley civilizations -- including Egypt and Nubia -- have experienced drastic skin tone changes in their 10,000 to 15,000 years of existence.

    Modern science is telling us, as the Northern regions invading the Nile Valley many of the indigenous people retreated south and north. In fact, many experts have theorize that the Dogon tribe of Mali came from Egypt.

    Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT9-XIHsjec

    ReplyDelete
  7. My bad: I mean the indigenous people retreated south and west. The attacks came from Libya, Sinai, Canaanite, Hyksos, Romans, French etc. So, one can see over thousands of years how the current skin tone came.

    Post Script: The Islamic conquest of Egypt did not happen until circa 616 AD...once again, this is thousands and thousands of years after the genesis of this great empire.

    ReplyDelete