Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1057 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Tue 02 Jan 2007 17:57 Post subject: Post-Diasporic Sub-Saharans in Pacific
Hello, all. Hope you had wonderful holiday celebrations. I didn't. My poor Mom fell in the cemetery while visiting my grandparents' graves and nearly broke her jaw on a gravestone, which then fell over. She is OK, and still insisted on cooking Christmas dinner.
I recently was watching a program in the middle of the night on PBS. I was half-asleep, but did catch a few phrases here and there. Unfortunately, I don't know the name of the program, as it wasn't even listed. In it, it was claimed that sub-Saharan genetic material (from after our species' initial exodus from Africa, naturally) is occasionally found in Pacific peoples. The "L" mtDNA lineage was mentioned, as were sub-Saharan HLA genes and the "A" Y-chromosome lineage. No more than this was mentioned, and who, specifically, these "Pacific peoples" are was never elaborated on.
Curious about this, I consulted my encyclopedia and could only find a few passages about Spaniards who visited the various Pacific islands. No mention was made regarding Africans having been brought there by the Spaniards, though. Next, I consulted Africana, by Gates and Appiah, and found references to Arab slave traders selling sub-Saharan slaves in southern Asia. In another article, it was specified that sub-Saharan East African slaves were sold in China, India and Indonesia. Indonesians can, I suppose, be regarded as Pacific peoples. I could find no mentionings of Arabs or Spaniards selling African slaves in the Pacific islands. I also found no information on Africans immigrating to these places on their own.
Does anyone have anything more on this? There must have been a small presence there to cause sub-Saharan genetic sequences to appear sporadically in this region.
Posted: Tue 02 Jan 2007 18:31 Post subject: Re: Post-Diasporic Sub-Saharans in Pacific
William wrote:
Does anyone have anything more on this? There must have been a small presence there to cause sub-Saharan genetic sequences to appear sporadically in this region.
Timing is crucial. When Hannibal's elephants were crossing the Alps, Polynesia was uninhabited except for Fiji, Tonga, and Samoa. That was when the Polynesians began to colonize the Pacific. They ended up in New Zealand about the time that William the Conqueror was doing his thing at Hastings. Since the 18th century, there have been many visits by explorers and merchants. For example, a very large fraction (perhaps one-fifth) of the crewmen on New Bedford whaling ships were African Americans, and they enjoyed R&R at every stop.
DNAPrint Genomics used to post statistics on their web site, and I vaguely recall that there was a relatively high (2-4 percent) rate of sub-Saharan markers in self-identified Polynesians. I do not think that they post them any more, but you might want to go to www.gnxp.com and search their archives for "polynesia".
Last edited by fwsweet on Tue 02 Jan 2007 20:05; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1057 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Tue 02 Jan 2007 18:42 Post subject:
Thanks, Frank; that information, along with what I read in Gates & Appiah, does seem to explain things.
Yes, I do recall that chart on AncestryByDNA. In fact, I have it at home somewhere. But I did a search, and indeed it still is there, at the bottom of this page. You were right; the figure is 3.7%.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1057 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Tue 02 Jan 2007 19:12 Post subject:
Incidentally, what historical event(s) could cause the relatively high levels of Amerindian DNA in Mediterraneans (not only in Iberians)? The only thing I can think of is a translocation into various southern European countries of South American Natives by the Iberians. Some, apparently, were brought into Italy and Greece. Italy, surprisingly, has a 7% input from Amerindians. Could this also partially have to do with an immigration of Italian-descended Argentinians or Brazilians, whose ancestors in Argentina or Brazil had, as most would have done, mixed with the population at large there?
Interesting, too, is to see figures for East Asian Admixture, which I knew existed in western Europeans, but of course is more common in eastern Europeans. I recall an HLA study (in our index, I think) on Azoreans, in which the East Asian input was, surprisingly, higher than the African one, although both were minimal compared to the European component. The authors of the study surmised a "Mongoloid" population may have existed already on the Azores prior to Portuguese colonization. This seems unlikely to me, since the islands are described as uninhabited before this time. More likely, in my opinion, is perhaps the importation of peoples from East Asia, a region Portuguese navigators certainly frequented for centuries.
Incidentally, what historical event(s) could cause the relatively high levels of Amerindian DNA in Mediterraneans (not only in Iberians)?
Beats me. I wish I knew how they differentiate "East Asian" markers from "Native American" markers. According to my mol. anthro. prof, Mongolians and Native Americans are damned near indistinguishable genetically.
William wrote:
Interesting, too, is to see figures for East Asian Admixture, which I knew existed in western Europeans, but of course is more common in eastern Europeans.
What were the Huns? Were they "East Asian?" If so, they might be a source. They won, after all, but then they started eating frogs and snails and so turned into Frenchmen, like everybody else that invaded France.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1057 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Tue 02 Jan 2007 19:53 Post subject:
Frank wrote:
Beats me. I wish I knew how they differentiate "East Asian" markers from "Native American" markers. According to my mol. anthro. prof, Mongolians and Native Americans are damned near indistinguishable genetically.
That's what I've always thought. Perhaps we should be on the safe side and regard "East Asian" and "Native American" categories together under an "Asiatic" title. I may e-mail Tony Frudakis about this, as I've corresponded with him in the past.
Frank wrote:
What were the Huns? Were they "East Asian?" If so, they might be a source. They won, after all, but then they started eating frogs and snails and so turned into Frenchmen, like everybody else that invaded France.
Yes, the Huns were largely what would be called "Mongoloid" by Coon. So were the Avars. They mixed with people as they wandered into Europe. But they were still largely Asiatic, as Coon notes that crania of early Hunnish and Avaric cemeteries in Europe are mostly "Mongoloid." As time wore on, the crania were less Asiatic, showing that admixture and absorption into the mainstream had occurred. This certainly occurred in all countries they settled in: Hungary, Austria, France, etc. In Hungary, according to Coon, who uses Bartucz's information, a small portion of the present day populaiton of Hungary is still visibly "Mongoloid." Come to think of it, I believe Coon mentions that Asiatic-looking Frenchmen are occasionally seen. He attributes this to an early Upper Palaeolithic leftover, but maybe the Huns and Avars contributed to this, too. I'm not sure how large this Asiatic migration into Europe was, but according to what I have read, it was nothing to be scoffed at. If one examines the Asiatic genetic component of most Europeans, however, one could conclude that, similar to sub-Saharan admixture, any "Mongoloid" admixture, although certainly present, is far too small to have affected phenotype.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Wed 03 Jan 2007 01:06 Post subject: Mongolians
William wrote:
Incidentally, what historical event(s) could cause the relatively high levels of Amerindian DNA in Mediterraneans (not only in Iberians)? The only thing I can think of is a translocation into various southern European countries of South American Natives by the Iberians. Some, apparently, were brought into Italy and Greece. Italy, surprisingly, has a 7% input from Amerindians. Could this also partially have to do with an immigration of Italian-descended Argentinians or Brazilians, whose ancestors in Argentina or Brazil had, as most would have done, mixed with the population at large there?
Mongolians?
I recall that the Mongolians were the closest match of Native Americans in the old world. And they pretty much spread through Europe during the Middle Ages, and they suddenly "dissapeared". Where do they go?
The number of Natives Americans brought to Europe I believe it was small. Most of them were send there as curiosities. But there is also the case of the upper classes of the Inca and Aztec Empires that ended up in the royalty of Europe, like Francisca Pizarro, Garcilaso de la Vega, and many other fellows. That's an amazing part of the European history that is not very well know, although is not demographically representative.
Back immigration in recent times from Latin America, or from Argentina in the case of Italy, I don't think could explain that. Most immigration of Latin America by far goes to the U.S.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1057 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Mon 08 Jan 2007 18:10 Post subject:
Omar wrote:
I recall that the Mongolians were the closest match of Native Americans in the old world. And they pretty much spread through Europe during the Middle Ages, and they suddenly "dissapeared". Where do they go?
I think this may be the key. The Huns, Avars, and Mongols all became absorbed into various European populations, just like Africans did. I will try to get in touch with AncestryByDNA to find out how certain they are with regard to Amerindian vs. Asiatic markers.
Omar wrote:
The number of Natives Americans brought to Europe I believe it was small. Most of them were send there as curiosities. But there is also the case of the upper classes of the Inca and Aztec Empires that ended up in the royalty of Europe, like Francisca Pizarro, Garcilaso de la Vega, and many other fellows. That's an amazing part of the European history that is not very well know, although is not demographically representative.
Yes, I've heard of such things occurring, but knew of nothing concrete.
Omar wrote:
Back immigration in recent times from Latin America, or from Argentina in the case of Italy, I don't think could explain that. Most immigration of Latin America by far goes to the U.S.
Joined: 04 Oct 2006 {Posts: 211 } Location: CT/U.S.A.
Posted: Tue 16 Jan 2007 22:05 Post subject:
Interesting.
I've been researching the South Asian & Pacific realms for the past couple of months and have found a lot of information (not to mention pictures of the "native peoples", a.k.a. the Original or Aborignal people, of South Asia/Indonesia/Malaysia/New Guinea/Australia) that supports sub-Saharan (I hate that term!) mtDNA connection with South Asia, which is where I assume the South Pacific people must have come from following the great migration of Homo Sapiens outside of the continent of Africa.
I'm still researching and learning more but I was very suprised when I saw pictures of the original inhabitants of Asia, who still are darker than most "Black"-identified people I've ever met in life. They call these people "Negritos" or "Negrillos" and they have inhabited South Asia/Indonesia/Malaysia/Phillipines/Thailand since before these lands were known as such. They are the aboriginal people of those lands and even have protected status stating this from their respective governments. I know some will definitely scream out, "THEY'RE NOT BLACK!!!!" and that's all good, but that's another argument as well as perspective that can and usually is left to the "eye of the beholder" so to speak.
You (William) should check out the Andamanese, the Onge, the Jarawa, the Sentineli, the Semang of the Malay peninsula, the Aeta of the Philippines, the Muruts of North Borneo, the Papuans of Schouten and Halmahera, the Bogobos, the Igorots of the Philippines as well as the Angami Naga of north-east India, the Sakai of Malaya, the Mois of Indo-China and all Negritos are related, representing a very ancient element of population that is also distantly connected to the Australian aborigines.
Of course, more studies are needed and are currently being done by anthropologists and historians but it seems as if all of the above mentioned "Negrito" or "Negrillo" groups are definitely genetically related and all seem to have been in the region since the first migrations of homo sapiens out of Africa occured tens of thousands of years ago. In fact, most have been in total isolation and in a sense are unchanged genetically and culturally from tens of thousands of years ago!
Now that's "gangster", IMO! Holding on to your way of life for so many eons that your "descendants" (stereotypically looking South Asians, who have changed at least in skin tone and culture) come to "study" you because they too cannot believe they descended from you. Amazing! Genetics is absolutely amazing! I know, I know...I digress, but you have to admit it too.
There are some very smart people who post here so I'm sure someone knows of these groups of people I'm referring to or at least have heard of them.
SIDENOTE: I grew up in a very proud, pro-"Black", Afro-centric (before it was a "negative" term used to describe culturally aware "Blacks" unafraid to look within Africa as the birthplace of civilization) household where my mother would tell me things like, "There are Blacks (genetically linked to Africans, but socially seen as their own ethnicity/culture) who are the original inhabitants of Asia that you will not read about in your school curriculum". I always thought she was full of sh*t with some of the claims but as I have gotten older, I can definitely see and follow what she was trying to instill in me. I get it now...even if some people never will...I do. Some of those things I've confirmed and others I haven't. We still get into discussions and debates about some of her claims because there is a lot more info out there nowadays than when she made certain claims 20 years ago. It is what it is, I guess.
Enough typing already, check out this link:http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/text.htm. Be sure to go to the bottom of the URL and click on the pictures to browse through the chapters of the book. You may be surprised...OR NOT.
We have had many, many discussions of the Andaman Islanders, along with pictures. The most vivid one to my recollection was when Jaime presented them to successfully refute my hypothesis that the diaspora group had light-brown skin like the Khoisan. Just click on "Search" above and type in the word "Andaman."
Sankofa wrote:
I know some will definitely scream out, "THEY'RE NOT BLACK!!!!"...
Regarding whether they are "Black" I doubt that screaming is warranted, but you would do well to read The Rules, paragraph B.4.k. Please define what you mean by "Black" in this context. The Andaman Islanders are not African Americans. And they do not descend from the transatlantic slave trade. They have sub-Saharan ancestry, of course, as do all members of our species.
Last edited by fwsweet on Tue 16 Jan 2007 23:11; edited 2 times in total
Yes, andaman.org. is a great site. And you are right. All of them are not Black. As Black is a subjective term. All of them are related and some do refer to themselves as Black after contact with Europeans. They actually are the closest outside of Africa in relation to our common ancestors, but they are not closer to Africans. They genetic diverggence is still about the same as other asians if not more.
Joined: 04 Oct 2006 {Posts: 211 } Location: CT/U.S.A.
Posted: Wed 17 Jan 2007 15:26 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote
Quote:
Regarding whether they are "Black" I doubt that screaming is warranted, but you would do well to read The Rules, paragraph B.4.k. Please define what you mean by "Black" in this context. The Andaman Islanders are not African Americans. And they do not descend from the transatlantic slave trade. They have sub-Saharan ancestry, of course, as do all members of our species.
I wasn't screaming at anyone. I wrote the statement in that context as an example of what I think people would say with regards to me referring to them as "Black". It was more of a role play than an actual scream.
The Great Andamanese people aren't "African-Americans" and I never once said they were. I said they are "Black" because they're skin ranges from very dark brown to extremely black, as in the actual color black. You don't have to be a direct descendant of the Transatlantic Slave Trade to be considered "Black", as we've had this discussion already. There are countless "Blacks" across the world whose ancestry never involved slave-trading and we all originated from the same place...Africa, whether the skin melanin has changed or not. It is what it is no matter how it is spun.
The point was to show William that there are "legs" to his assumptions of Pacific Islanders or people from Oceania having sub-saharan mtDNA because if one follows the migration patterns of the oldest homo sapiens outside of Africa eastward bound, it undoubtedly leads to the "Negrito" and "Negrillo" peoples of South/Southeast Asia. With the Great Andamanese being the oldest in this region, it makes perfect sense or at least a good assumption that some of those people had to have continued on through Australia (the aborigines) on to New Guinea (the Papuans) and onward southeast to Oceania.
I know these people aren't Africans as in present day Africans (i.e. Nigerians, Kenyans, Sudanese, etc) but they are indeed a good look into what the oldest homo sapiens must have looked like, because they're DNA hasn't changed since they migrated out of Africa some 70,000 years ago. What I find remarkable is the fact that you can see why present day Asians aren't very tall and have those round, flat facial features that most of them exhibit. It's all relevant if one is objective enough to really see.
The Semang (Thailand) people have a strikingkly good resemblance to the Olmec stone heads found all over Central America, Mexico to be specific.
I've also seen side by side comparisons of modern day Nigerians who have the same facial features as do the Olmec heads found in Mexico. I can't find it now, but possibly I could find it later.
I never suggested that Sankofa was screaming. Sankofa was the one who wrote, "I know some will definitely scream out, "THEY'RE NOT BLACK!!!!"..." I am merely expressing skepticism at this prediction by Sankofa that "some will definitely scream." Again, I doubt that screaming is warranted.
Sankofa wrote:
I said they are "Black" because they're skin ranges from very dark brown to extremely black, as in the actual color black. You don't have to be a direct descendant of the Transatlantic Slave Trade to be considered "Black", as we've had this discussion already. There are countless "Blacks" across the world whose ancestry never involved slave-trading and we all originated from the same place...Africa, whether the skin melanin has changed or not. It is what it is no matter how it is spun.
In accordance with paragraph B.4.K of The Rules, I asked Sankofa to explain what exactly Sankofa meant by "Black" in the claim that Andaman Islanders are Black. The above reply is not responsive. It starts by saying that Sankofa means "of dark complexion" and ends by saying it means "descendant of the out-of-Africa diaspora." To quote paragraph B.4.K of The Rules, "Other members strive for deliberate ambiguity and refuse to clarify which meaning was intended ... Their posting privileges will be suspended."
Second request. Sankofa is hereby asked to explain just what is meant by "Black" in the context of "Andaman Islanders are Black." Does Sankofa use "Black" to mean that they have dark complexion (like Melanesians, Australians, and many Tamil Indians)? Or does Does Sankofa use "Black" to mean that they descend from the out-of-Africa diaspora (like every other member of our species)? Or (as the last paragraph of Sankofa's latest post suggests) Does Sankofa mean that their facial features "look Black" to Sankofa?
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1057 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Wed 17 Jan 2007 19:05 Post subject:
Thank you, Sankofa, for the pictures and information. But I was searching for (and found) information on later (post-diasporic) sub-Saharan admixture among Pacific peoples.
Joined: 04 Oct 2006 {Posts: 211 } Location: CT/U.S.A.
Posted: Wed 17 Jan 2007 19:54 Post subject:
fwsweet
I'm not about to argue with you over something that is clearly written.
BTW, in my first post I never said they were "Black". That was something that you assumed I said. You hear the word black and immediately go into "war mode" looking for a fight. Here is my exact wording from which you derived that assumption.
Quote:
I'm still researching and learning more but I was very suprised when I saw pictures of the original inhabitants of Asia, who still are darker than most "Black"-identified people I've ever met in life. They call these people "Negritos" or "Negrillos" and they have inhabited South Asia/Indonesia/Malaysia/Phillipines/Thailand since before these lands were known as such. They are the aboriginal people of those lands and even have protected status stating this from their respective governments. I know some will definitely scream out, "THEY'RE NOT BLACK!!!!" and that's all good, but that's another argument as well as perspective that can and usually is left to the "eye of the beholder" so to speak.
That was the second paragraph of my first post. Where do I say they are "Black"?
I answered your original question/statement:
Quote:
Please define what you mean by "Black" in this context.
to which I answered:
Quote:
I wasn't screaming at anyone. I wrote the statement in that context as an example of what I think people would say with regards to me referring to them as "Black". It was more of a role play than an actual scream.
and also answered it with this paragraph that you quoted me saying:
Quote:
The Great Andamanese people aren't "African-Americans" and I never once said they were. I said they are "Black" because they're skin ranges from very dark brown to extremely black, as in the actual color black. You don't have to be a direct descendant of the Transatlantic Slave Trade to be considered "Black", as we've had this discussion already. There are countless "Blacks" across the world whose ancestry never involved slave-trading and we all originated from the same place...Africa, whether the skin melanin has changed or not. It is what it is no matter how it is spun.
How is that not an answer to your question?
You asked me, Sankofa, to define why I, again Sankofa, defined the Great Andamanese people as "Black" and in what context. If you look closely at what I've written, you will definitely be able to see I deliberately differentiated between the color black and the culture "Black" by using capitalization when referring to culture/ethnicity. Since I've been posting here I've always capitalized the 'b' in black and put it in quotes to distinguish it from the actual color black and I thought that was obvious. Why else would I have the color black listed several times within the same paragraph but with different diction within the same context?
How are you seriously going to dictate what my answer should be if I've answered your question as to what I, Sankofa...not fwsweet, meant by my statement? Can it just be that you don't like my answer or reasoning behind my answer as oppossed to telling me I didn't answer your question?
fwsweet wrote:
Quote:
Second request. Sankofa is hereby asked to explain just what is meant by "Black" in the context of "Andaman Islanders are Black." Does Sankofa use "Black" to mean that they have dark complexion (like Melanesians, Australians, and many Tamil Indians)? Or does Does Sankofa use "Black" to mean that they descend from the out-of-Africa diaspora (like every other member of our species)? Or (as the last paragraph of Sankofa's latest post suggests) Does Sankofa mean that their facial features "look Black" to Sankofa?
There is no way you could be actually reading/comprehending my posts because you keep asking the same questions to which you will get the same answers. Every question you ask in this last paragraph I've already answered or already said prior to you even asking me. I already said they are the color of the crayon, black...that's why I referred to them as "Black"...not "Black-American", not "Black-Britian", not "Black-French", not "Black-Latino"...just "Black". Their skin is darker than ANY "Black" person I've ever met in my life. Hell, I thought my maternal grandmother was dark complexioned but that was until I saw these original people of Asia. They make my maternal grandmother look like the rapper Ludacris (LOL).
Okay. Now that I've sufficiently answered your questions, please answer one of mine. How would you (Frank) classify people who look like this anyway?
Each and everyone of these pictures are of native/aboriginal Asians belonging to the Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal (India) inbetween India and the Malay Peninsula (Malaysia/Indonesia) for the last 70,000 years.
If you saw these people on the streets of America or anywhere in the world, would it be safe to say that you would think they were sub-saharan (hate that term!!!) African? I can admit I would definitely say these people were Africans..."Black" East Africans, at that. Can you, Frank, honestly tell me you wouldn't refer to these people as "Black-xxxx"??? I doubt that very seriously if your answer is no.
BTW, in my first post I never said they were "Black". ... I said they are "Black" because they're skin ranges from very dark brown to extremely black, as in the actual color black. ...
I deliberately differentiated between the color black and the culture "Black" by using capitalization when referring to culture/ethnicity. ... I already said they are the color of the crayon, black...that's why I referred to them as "Black". ...
This is pointless. First you claim that you never said it. Then you claim that you said because of their complexion, not because their culture/ethnicity. Then you say that you capitalize the label only when you mean "culture/ethnicity," not when you mean mere color. And yet you capitalize the label throughout.
Sankofa has one hour to convince me that he is not just being obstructive.
1. Do you consider the Andamaners to be "Black" (or "black") in any way? Please answer "yes" or "no."
2. If "yes," is this because of their (A) complexion or (B) their culture/ethnicity? Please answer A or B.
Sankofa wrote:
How would you (Frank) classify people who look like this anyway?
I do not classify people against their will. I accept whatever designation anyone applies to himself or herself. As far as I know, they consider themselves Andaman Islanders.
Sankofa wrote:
If you saw these people on the streets of America or anywhere in the world, would it be safe to say that you would think they were sub-saharan African?
Absolutely not. They look like Andaman Islanders.
Sankofa wrote:
I can admit I would definitely say these people were Africans..."Black" East Africans, at that.
That is probably due to your inexperience or your lack of overseas travel.
Sankofa wrote:
Can you, Frank, honestly tell me you wouldn't refer to these people as "Black-xxxx"???
Absolutely not! I never refer to anyone by any label except a label that I know is self-chosen by the person himself/herself. Never! To do so would be insulting and demeaning. In some places it would be suicidal.
Sankofa wrote:
I doubt that very seriously if your answer is no.
Then you show deeper ignorance than I could have ever imagined.
The Great Andamanese people aren't "African-Americans" and I never once said they were. I said they are "Black" because they're skin ranges from very dark brown to extremely black, as in the actual color black.
No they do not. They get to very dark brown, even a blueish brown, but never Black.
Quote:
You don't have to be a direct descendant of the Transatlantic Slave Trade to be considered "Black", as we've had this discussion already. There are countless "Blacks" across the world whose ancestry never involved slave-trading and we all originated from the same place...Africa, whether the skin melanin has changed or not. It is what it is no matter how it is spun.
Only the ones that accepted the terms imposed by Europeans.
Quote:
The point was to show William that there are "legs" to his assumptions of Pacific Islanders or people from Oceania having sub-saharan mtDNA because if one follows the migration patterns of the oldest homo sapiens outside of Africa eastward bound, it undoubtedly leads to the "Negrito" and "Negrillo" peoples of South/Southeast Asia. With the Great Andamanese being the oldest in this region, it makes perfect sense or at least a good assumption that some of those people had to have continued on through Australia (the aborigines) on to New Guinea (the Papuans) and onward southeast to Oceania.
Again, incorrect. Because the same mtDNA that is found in them from Africa is found in all poplations as they migrated out with the wave. The Sub Saharan specific markers were formed in later African populations. The Andamanese ancestors never went to the Sub Saharan region.
Quote:
I know these people aren't Africans as in present day Africans (i.e. Nigerians, Kenyans, Sudanese, etc) but they are indeed a good look into what the oldest homo sapiens must have looked like, because they're DNA hasn't changed since they migrated out of Africa some 70,000 years ago. What I find remarkable is the fact that you can see why present day Asians aren't very tall and have those round, flat facial features that most of them exhibit. It's all relevant if one is objective enough to really see.
Again incorrect. Their DNA has changed. In fact so have their looks. The oldest homo sapiens actually had a bone structure closer to that of Aborigines, and the oldest living population are the Khoisan. The Andamanese look like neither.
Quote:
The Semang (Thailand) people have a strikingkly good resemblance to the Olmec stone heads found all over Central America, Mexico to be specific.
I've also seen side by side comparisons of modern day Nigerians who have the same facial features as do the Olmec heads found in Mexico. I can't find it now, but possibly I could find it later.
Wrong again. Plenty of evidence shows that Olmecs look like populations of Native Americans existent to this day.
Okay. Now that I've sufficiently answered your questions, please answer one of mine. How would you (Frank) classify people who look like this anyway?
Each and everyone of these pictures are of native/aboriginal Asians belonging to the Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal (India) inbetween India and the Malay Peninsula (Malaysia/Indonesia) for the last 70,000 years.
If you saw these people on the streets of America or anywhere in the world, would it be safe to say that you would think they were sub-saharan (hate that term!!!) African? I can admit I would definitely say these people were Africans..."Black" East Africans, at that. Can you, Frank, honestly tell me you wouldn't refer to these people as "Black-xxxx"??? I doubt that very seriously if your answer is no.
Actually, No They look like Jarawa. Only people who see the world through racialism would not be able to tell the differences. there is not one African population that has those exact features.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
