Native breh breaks down Cherokee History

[Pull Up the Roots]

because it was told in REVERSE



Harriet Tubman and Nat Turner were fictional characters
Black Americans are the real Native Americans and slave owners
All White Americans were actually the slaves

500K subscribers and counting


















half a million people believe in that nonsense and will most likely spread it

Somebody needs to slap some sense into that dude. There's no excuse for some of the shyt he says.

 

[Dre God]

because it was told in REVERSE



Harriet Tubman and Nat Turner were fictional characters
Black Americans are the real Native Americans and slave owners
All White Americans were actually the slaves

500K subscribers and counting


















half a million people believe in that nonsense and will most likely spread it

Black America is in shambles.

Just focus on building with your immediate family and friends and let the rest of these idiots fail.

It was told in reverse

 

[Spiritual Stratocaster]

did he go into detail about Cherokees enslaving Africans?

Of course not...All native Americans enslaved

Africans enslaved...slavery is apart of this world since the beginning.

 

[Mowgli]

I dont think you understand how dna works. We can trace the age of a particular trait and its relation to other traits in unrelated groups in order to trace the two populations' relatedness. We can say that polynesians are unrelated to black africans because they lack the series of alleles that we developed in the 50,000 years since their departure from africa. We are honestly more related to Habibi in Saudi Arabia than we are to an aboriginal.


If they suddenly stopped sharing alleles with us 50000 years ago, then that hints at a departure. If they have genes that we do not, that also hints at departure. If We can find corpses spread across the indian ocean's and pacific ocean's islands that are more related to aboriginals than to Africans, this hints at their departure also. And all of the above is true








Additionally, genes can also form independently; meaning a trait such as black skin and wooly hair can form in an environment thats unrelated to black people. For example, look at the aboriginals of solomon island who have literally no relation whstsoever to white people, but have independently formed and naturally occuring blonde hair and blue eyes. Same could be said for the natives of japan (Ainu minzoku) who have no relation to Africa but display independently formed black skin and thick hair.



Finally, maternal haplogroups in DNA testing further trace lineages and disprove or prove relatededness between those aboriginals.







All these factors can establish whether dna from well preserved native americans prior to and after columbus is truly of African origin. And once again, all of this can be sequenced in less than an hour for $100.00 using modern tech. And the analysis of relatedness could be completed using AI in 24hours afterwards. We dont need to be using circumstantial evidence and hotep babble to like its 1982 to debate something that can be solved in a lab.

While DNA testing can provide some useful information, it is not the be-all and end-all of determining the relatedness or origins of a population. Just because two groups may not share the same alleles doesn't mean they have no connection to each other. Plus, genes can form independently, so just because someone has certain traits doesn't mean they are related to a certain population. And even if we do find some well-preserved DNA from Native Americans, it doesn't necessarily prove anything about their origins. So let's not put all our eggs in the DNA testing basket and instead look at a more comprehensive approach to studying population history. We don't want to be like those hotep babblers from 1982, trying to use DNA as the only evidence for everything.

 

[CopiousX]

That's not enough if land had a different configuration once upon a time.

We can also trace when the land configuration changed. You are viewing the past like @It is a mystery , but we can track most of this stuff down like an episode of geological CSI-Miami. Everything from ice cores, to plate techtonics, to radiologic argon/potasium dating can tell us when and where land shifted. In fact, most of the continental shifting stopped prior to humans departing Africa, so land mass movement was not a factor in aboriginals or native americans leaving africa.





Now, i do concede that sealevel exposing land is an outstanding factor, but this is one of those things that the air composition inside ice sheets/ice cores can tell us more about. For example, the air has a different composition of elements at different points in earth's history; and this air can get trapped in ice at the poles as it freezes, so we can tell the level of seas by tracking the elemental components of air pockets trapped in ice at different levels(corresponding to how old the ice is) in history. From there we can use modern ocean floor mapping to tell which high elevation land was exposed during the aboriginal trek.

The prevailing viewpoint is that the continents had stopped shifting before aboriginals left africa, and that their long trek to Australia was fascilitated by drastically low sea levels, to the extent that primitive boats could have aided them in their migration. And by drastic i mean really drastic, to the tune of the ocean being more than 300ft lower than now.





And i will admit that this last point is extremely anecdotal, but the origin stories of the aboriginals themselves actually describe how low/high the sea was in their infancy to a remarkably accurate degree, which further supports the prevailing viewpoint. Their own stories have been the amusement of anthropologists since the 80s. If you dont want to listen to the western viewpoint, why not take the aboriginal's word for it?

Link-> Ancient Sea Rise Tale Told Accurately for 10,000 Years

 

[Yagirlcheatinonus]

America is Egypt

 

[Robbie3000]

did he go into detail about Cherokees enslaving Africans?

Yes and ironically, he was quite proud.

 

[Big Mountain Hélà]

Joined: March 11, 2022.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I'm a monkey's uncle.......and you're my nephew.

​

 

[Everythingg]

It's a silly arguement because we can actually take dna samples from the dead Indians before Columbus and the Indians afterwards and see whether they are African or not.




You could literally print out the entire DNA of an ancient person in an hour for less than $100. It's shame we are still dealing with circumstancial evidence all these years later like we in the 1900s.

Anybody arguing that the black man wasn’t the first man on every continent is an opp no doubts about it.

Black people on Mexican murals PRE COLOMBUS so if they don’t want to go by African then they not African..

 

[CopiousX]

Anybody arguing that the black man wasn’t the first man on every continent is an opp no doubts about it.

Black people on Mexican murals PRE COLOMBUS so if they don’t want to go by African then they not African..

Again, we dont need this. Like at all. Using curcumstantial evidence like wall paintings, statues, and conquistador journals is open to interpretation. A DNA test is a shut and closed case. No room for wiggle room.



You and i both know that hispanics will argue that some of them are dark too. Cacs will argue that they had dreads too. None of these people can argue against lab results.

 

[Thatrogueassdiaz]

That idiot is making my hometown look bad as fukk. It's funny because he sounds so convincing but really he just really believes that foolishness. Not saying he isn't Cherokee and not black, but I'm more talking about all the other nonsense he spewed.

 

[Everythingg]

Again, we dont need this. Like at all. Using curcumstantial evidence like wall paintings, statues, and conquistador journals is open to interpretation. A DNA test is a shut and closed case. No room for wiggle room.



You and i both know that hispanics will argue that some of them are dark too. Cacs will argue that they had dreads too. None of these people can argue against lab results.

Nope. A DNA test involves you sending your blood to some lab and trusting their findings while murals give insight on how the people at the time actually viewed themselves. Especially those ones

And of course they’d argue that. Everyone all around the world wants to pretend as if black people were only found in Africa before the slave trade but it’s simply not true. Black people were in Asia Europe America etc… and NOT JUST Africa.

 

[Gritsngravy]

It's a silly arguement because we can actually take dna samples from the dead Indians before Columbus and the Indians afterwards and see whether they are African or not.




You could literally print out the entire DNA of an ancient person in an hour for less than $100. It's shame we are still dealing with circumstancial evidence all these years later like we in the 1900s.

Isn’t everybody technically African, didn’t China researchers discover everybody originated from Africa

 

[Paper Boi]

OP got a little mountain avatar too