Did you know that a 9th century Arab wrote a book entitled "The Superiority of Blacks over Whites"?

[Mindfield333]

This thread has already exposed you as an undercover cac that tries to limit black history and our presence on the world's stage.

The original Arabs were black. I could care less about the people who NOW call themselves Arab. The linguistic and historical data is clear that the people of Arabia around the time Islam rose were clearly BLACK and no different phenotypically from modern day East Africans (which are their closest relatives linguistically).

Are you now gonna that East Africans aren't black as well white boy? Cause Arabic and Hebrew are most closesly related to AFRICAN languages.

i recently watched a documentary that covered this

 

[Koichos]

Just had to post this video where China’s top geneticist proved that Chinese are descendants of Africans.

Yes, but this is a global phenomena, not one endemic to the Chinese. They are not a special case among Northeast Asians with respect to ancestral affinity. In fact, the Chinese are further from Africans genetically than are Koreans or the Japanese.

Spoiler

*Genetic distance (Nei's method) based on 29 polymorphic loci; 121 alleles

(Nei and Roychoudhury, 1993)



*mean distance
Mongolian to African (Pygmy, Nigerian, Bantu, San): *12.3 (13.6, 14.1, 11.2, 10.4)
Korean to African (Pygmy, Nigerian, Bantu, San): *12.7 (14.3, 14.3, 11.5, 10.5)
Tibetan to African (Pygmy, Nigerian, Bantu, San): *12.8 (14.8, 14.3, 11.5, 10.5)
Japanese to African (Pygmy, Nigerian, Bantu, San): *13.0 (14.5, 14.9, 11.7, 10.8)
Chinese to African (Pygmy, Nigerian, Bantu, San): *13.7 (15.0, 15.5, 12.5, 11.7)

==

*Genetic distance (Nei's method) calculated for 15 populations on the basis of 33 polymorphic loci (131 alleles)



*mean distance
Korean to African (Pygmy, Nigerian, Bantu, San): *11.27 (12.67, 12.84, 10.33, 9.22)
Japanese to African (Pygmy, Nigerian, Bantu, San): *11.55 (12.89, 13.34, 10.52, 9.45)
Chinese to African (Pygmy, Nigerian, Bantu, San): *12.19 (13.35, 13.88, 11.28, 10.25

Their own genetics show they are an African people so you’re playing semantics at this point.

No, that is not what their genetics show, nor was such a conclusion from the video made. Rather, the Chinese were found to carry a paternal marker that arose in Africa 80,000 years ago.. Okay.. We've known for decades that all non-Africans carry African markers but not the other way around, consistent with a passage first from Africa, and then subsequent mutations and expansions of haplogroups outside of Africa due to selective pressures. If carrying an African genetic marker (and hence having an African ancestor) makes one an African—per your criteria for denoting Asians as an African people—then no man on this planet is non-African.

Spoiler

Among 9 major human population clusters, Northeast Asians and Southeast Asians are furthest removed from Africans. They are closer to all other human populations (Europeans, Amerinds, Australians/New Guineans, Pacific Islanders, and so on) and more than twice as remote from Africans than from any other group.


*Genetic distance (Fst method) calculated for 42 populations across 9 major clusters on the basis of 120 allele frequencies

(Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi L. The History and Geography of Human Genes. New Jersey, 1994, pg. 80)



*mean distance
Northeast Asians to Arctic NE Asian: *459.7 ± 98
Northeast Asians to Amerindians: 577.4 ± 89
Northeast Asians to Pacific Islanders: 723.8 ± 262
Northeast Asians to Papuans/Australians: 734.4 ± 118
Northeast Asians to Europeans: 938.2 ± 217
Northeast Asians to Africans: *1979.1 ± 452

Southeast Asians to Pacific Islanders: *436.7 ± 87
Southeast Asians to Northeast Asians: 630.5 ± 299
Southeast Asians to Arctic NE Asian: 1039.4 ± 326
Southeast Asians to Papuans/Australians: 1237.9 ± 277
Southeast Asians to Europeans: 1240.4 ± 339
Southeast Asians to Amerindians: 1341.7 ±418
Southeast Asians to Africans: *2472.0 ± 536

Homeboy in the book from 1000 years ago says Chinese were Black

The largest ethnic group in China, the Han Chinese, show a (minimum) genetic continuity of 3,000 years (Zhao et al., 2015), consistent with China's earliest known written records (~1100 BC).

East Asians as a whole have been a non-African people for more than 35,000 years. Europe was settled around this time according to archaeological data, mostly by East Asia but also Africa (Cavalli-Sforza, 1997). Population genetics supports the aforementioned via population distances. The literature on genetics shows that: 1) Asians and Europeans are closer to one another than either is to Africans; and 2) Asians and Africans form a more distant cluster than do Europeans and Africans—i.e., genetically, Europeans and Africans are closer than Asians and Africans.. Why? Because by the time Europe was settled (c. 40 kya), East Asians—whom contributed roughly 2/3 to Europe's settlement—were a derived people that had already split from Africans millennia prior.

Spoiler

Three major continental populations: Europeans, Asians, Africans

Genetically speaking:
Europeans and Asians are closest
Europeans and Africans are intermediate
Asians and Africans are furthest


*Genetic distances calculated on the basis of 186 loci (84 proteins, 33 blood group loci, 8 HLA and immunoglobulin loci, 61 DNA markers)

(Nei and Livshyts, 1989; Cavalli-Sforza, 1994)



*mean distance
186 genetic loci
Europeans/Asians: .040 ± .007
Europeans/Africans: .063 ± .011
Asians/Africans: .078 ± .013

a Chinese scientist in the modern era says they are descendants of Black people

..yeah, 50,000 years ago. That doesn't make them an African people even 30,000 years ago, let alone today.

 

[Swagnificent]

Uppin for black history month.

 

[Swagnificent]

Upping for ignorant among us who don't know their own history.