Cac admits Africans were in America centuries before Columbus
- Thread starter SleezyBigSlim
- Start date
Notice I didnt use african in my post, africa is largely irrelevant. I specified aborignal with intention. Genome divergent from a mainland african though largely retaining the phenotype of such.
Pic related above are native Asians from the Philippines, generational admixture has tampered proper gene expression but the heritage is still undeniable. Mongoloids invaded and subsumed the orginal populations, the americas tell the same story which is why mexicans ,or hispanics in general, without spaniard blood look no different than South East Asians aka blasians, because they are the same type of mutt formed thorugh miscegenation.
Any tropical place in the world where people have adapted over time is going to have darker-skinned peoples cause the light-skinned ones died off at a higher rate and get weeded out of the gene pool. This is most true in the places where folk have been the longest (africa, south india, new guinea, australia) and less true places where people only arrived more recently (americas), but it's true everywhere. So it makes sense that the native peoples of central america, southeast asia, etc. are going to be darker than the populations further north of them.
And it's definitely true that those dark-skinned native southeast asian groups have been highly admixed from invading Japanese/Chinese populations, that's all shown in the paper I linked.
The part that seems off is making any connection between dark-skinned native americans, southeast asians, south indians, australians, etc. as if they're related to each other or to OG black folk in Africa. Native Americans are all very closely related to each other no matter which part of the continents they cme from, and are genetically most closely related to light-skinned siberians and mongols, with makes sense cause they originated from those areas before coming over via Alaska tens of thousands of years ago, and they only developed slightly darker skin in the tropical regions of the americas over time. Southeast Asians aren't related to Native Americans, their own gene pool is separate and a distant cousin of Japanese and Chinese-Tibetan gene pools that got darker over hundreds of thousands of years. Then later after they had become a distinct people, they admixed again when the Japanese/Chinese groups invaded. But they never had any genetic connections to the native americans.
"ni66as" not the target audience for thisA white man said it, so now ni66as will accept it
skin color isnt a product of adaptation, all humans shared the same ancresors which is why they largely share the same phenotypical expression. The divergence in this expression instead comes from non human admixture that found its way into the human genome giving life to a diferenrnt classification entirely, this is where the "other" races derive from. Theres no comprise in the argument there, you operating on a fallacy as youre entire understanding on aborginal populations is contigent on africa as the foundation for null comparisons. Secondly, you admit the inaccurtly termed "native americans" arent native but migrants, im glad you have the sense to realize that. Now have the sense to understand the land was populated prior to there arrival hence my comparison between SEA Asia and the Americas. As both regions are mirrored, luckily native black asian populations are still present to this day and validate the claim that black populations resided in the land which is also highlighted by the lack of the transatlantic slave trade which most would use as an explanation.
These are some of the northern asian groups that Native Americans descended from:
Yakut
Dolgan
Selkup
Ulchi
All of those peoples are native to Siberia. They have some admixture with Chinese and northern European ancestry but overall they're mostly from those original Siberian roots which are the closest thing to Native American genetics. It's crazy how the connections are recent enough that not only the facial structures and such but even the cultural traditions have clear connections. But notice also have even within Siberia you're getting that clear variation in skin color, facial structure, etc. All of that variation was already there in the base population and ready to express itself in different ways in different groups as they migrated and spread in America.
Yakut
Dolgan
Selkup
Ulchi
All of those peoples are native to Siberia. They have some admixture with Chinese and northern European ancestry but overall they're mostly from those original Siberian roots which are the closest thing to Native American genetics. It's crazy how the connections are recent enough that not only the facial structures and such but even the cultural traditions have clear connections. But notice also have even within Siberia you're getting that clear variation in skin color, facial structure, etc. All of that variation was already there in the base population and ready to express itself in different ways in different groups as they migrated and spread in America.
Cuz them eyes don’t match
,
Precisely, and this invading population have zero relation to the true natives as pictured above. Simply, the history and identity was coopted and contemporarily attributed to a population that were in fact adversarial which makes the situation all the more ironic and amusing. Yet we have morons like you that try to uphold the integrity of a group of imposters and their clueless decendants. Pictured below
,
Last edited:
History has been manipulated and revised, its much more sinister than one could largely imagine. The Old world was decimated, and torn asunder and its history coopted by imposters, that now occupy lands inherited by their oblivious decendants that havent the slighest clue. The dark ages is when this resetting of the world occured
Last edited:
,
Precisely, and this invading population have zero relation to the true natives as pictured above. Simply, the history and identity was coopted and contemporarily attributed to a population that were in fact adversarial which makes the situation all the more ironic and amusing. Yet we have morons like you that try to uphold the integrity of a group of imposters and their clueless decendants. Pictured below
,
Breh, think it through logically. You just posted part of the Bonampak murals from Chiapas. Those were painted by the ruling Mayan culture somewhere around 600-800 A.D., a good 20,000 years or so after aboriginal peoples from Siberia came into the Americas over the land bridge. If you're saying those are the "true natives" who are different from the people who had come from Siberia tens of thousands of years earlier, that means you want us to believe:
#1. That there was already a pre-existing people in the Americas long before anyone came over from Siberia....and yet zero archeological or fossil evidence of ANY humans in the Americas before this time has been found. Where are their bones, their buildings, anything? Why hasn't fossil evidence of humans or human structures 40,000-50,000 years ago ever been found in the Americas like it is found in Africa, Europe, Asia, etc?
#2. Despite the invaders coming from Siberia, these aboriginal people were still in power 15,000-20,000 years later and ruling the greatest civilization of the time without being conquered or experiencing admixture.
#3. In the short few hundred years between those paintings and the Europeans coming over, the aboriginal peoples suddenly fell to the invaders that they had handled just fine for thousands of years until that point.
#4. All genetic evidence of their existence somehow disappeared and Native Americans now exclusively show a genetic heritage closely connected to the Siberian peoples without any evidence of ancient admixture with any unrelated aboriginal group.
The other alternative is the mainstream theory, which states that:
#1. Aboriginal peoples of Siberia came to the Americas around 15,000-20,000 years ago and spread across the two unpopulated continents.
#2. Over 10,000+ years of natural selection and genetic drift, the ones in the hottest regions selected over time for darker skin and varied features.
Literally all of the archeological, cultural, and genetic evidence supports the mainstream theory. What evidence do you have to insist that your own 1st theory is right, other than that you don't seem to believe that people near the equator are going to end up with darker skin over time as the whitest ones fall out of the genepool?
When was the mongolian conquest? There is your answer for when they arrived into the americas.Consider its much later than your bullshyt estimation. 20000 years? you just exposed yourself. Youre shallow conjecture is founded on extremely faulty timeline, no later, no earlier.
Last edited:
TheAnointedOne
Superstar
History is taught by the victor. The loser has no say. Since white people control the history/media/information we'll never get the real truth about Africa. If you told anyone about sea-faring African tribes that existed thousands of years ago folks will laugh in your face. Or that the legendary Atlantis was in West Africa, no one will believe it.
Secure Da Bag
Veteran
Need more info.
Secure Da Bag
Veteran
I appreciate you for posting this. I didn't know we had people on the Coli still that wildly and woefully ignorant.
