#majority african dna

[afriblaq]


Did you know Ghana has a law allowing descendants of enslaved Africans to return and gain citizenship? Passed in 2001, it’s still unknown to many in the diaspora. This video explains everything:

✔️ What Ghana’s Right of Return is.
✔️ How the process works: DNA proof, residency, and cultural engagement.
✔️ Benefits of citizenship, like owning land and full integration into society.
✔️ The Year of Return in 2019, marking 400 years since the first enslaved Africans were taken to Virginia in 1619.

Ghana’s efforts have inspired similar movements across Africa, making it a key destination for reconnecting with your heritage. Learn how you can be part of this life-changing opportunity.

@_the_merc

[icanseethefuture333]

Whenever I hear other African Americans say they're not black but indigenous/aboriginal a part of me dies

[intuitive-revelations]

I've got a kind-of crack theory about Ruby's mother...

Back in The Church on Ruby Road, Ruby is invited onto Long Lost Family, a genealogy TV program hosted by Davina McCall, with the hope of finding some information about her bio family. Unfortunately, they come up with nothing.

[ID: 6 gifs showing Ruby and Davina McCall talking to each other on the phone from The Church on Ruby Road. Davina apologies to Ruby, who tries to hide her upset at the news.

DAVINA: "There is no trace of your mum or dad. I'm sorry. It happens sometimes." RUBY: "No, that's fine... Thanks but, um, could you keep looking?" DAVINA: "No, there's nothing more we can do. If your parents aren't on some kind of database, we can't find them." RUBY: "Ok, um... isn't that unusual though? There's not a single trace anywhere? I mean... in the whole wide world, my mother's never left a blood sample or anythin'?"]

Now obviously, I know tracking down family is hard and, especially for orphans and adopted children, there's no gurantee that you'll be able to get the information you need. But I do find it odd there's seemingly "no trace" of Ruby's parents.

The section where I go on an odd tangent about genealogy

Speaking as someone who isn't a genealogist, but does enjoy researching family history in what little spare time they have... in my experience, close DNA matches aren't that hard to find. Especially if you're of white european descent, as Ruby is (presumably).

(It's generally harder for other ethnicities, as most research resources are white english/american focused. I know this is especially tricky for people like african-americans, where many of one's ancestors may have been enslaved. I've personally also found it tricky with Jewish communities as historically many of them used patronymic names prior to the 1800s, plus you have to account for immigration name changes, pogroms etc.)

For example, as someone who is white, with a mix of various british, mainland european, and ashkenazi ancestors, I actually have thousands of DNA matches, just from an autosomal test on Ancestry alone, let alone something like an mtDNA, xDNA or yDNA test:

[ID: Edited screenshot showing maternal and paternal DNA matches on my AncestryDNA profile. There are 16279 maternal matches and 9745 paternal matches.]

Obviously, due to the way family trees work, most of these are distant matches, however it does include plenty of close ones too, which I've been able to trace to real records and identify relationships with. Personally, my matches even already include many 1st and 2nd cousins, albeit usually a one or two degrees removed, especially as the userbase tends to swing older on these websites. This includes a few people close enough for me to have already known them from family functions and shared annecdotes. Meanwhile, where I did have blank spots, from immigrations, estranged family members, early deaths etc, I've been able to fill in a lot of information.

So what does it mean that there's "no trace" of Ruby's family?

Deliberate or not?

The big question I've had since The Church on Ruby Road is: just how untraceable is Ruby's family?

On one hand, I feel like if this was real life and professional TV genealogists were helping you, you'd get a bit more information than a quick phone call saying they've got zilch. If they're sharing nothing... do they literally have nothing?

On the other hand, this also feels like a writing shortcut. We don't really need 3 hours of Davina McCall sat with Ruby at a computer breaking down every question and theory about possible family members. Ultimately, this was probably just a way to quickly get some major exposition out there, plus throw in a Christmas celebrity cameo for casual viewers. The fact they only talk about Ruby's "parents" being in a DNA database, and no-one else, doesn't give me a lot of faith in the care for accuracy RTD took with this plot point tbh.

Indeed Davina does say 'it happens sometimes', which could indicate it's not as extreme as having zero close relatives...

...but Ruby also asks if it's unusual for there to be no trace of anything, which Davina doesn't answer. If we're asking that question, it sounds like things really could have turned up that blank.

It may not be easy for orphans and adoptees to find family, but I assume it must be quite rare to have zero possible leads? Especially if you're a younger person, and thus may have a good number of people of the right generation to know/remember your family members still alive. Worst case scenario, I can imagine having some leads, only for someone to be uncontactable, or lack the information that would be useful. That being said, maybe I'm being too optimistic, as someone who had the priviledge of never having as much difficulty.

The weird sci-fi parallel (TW: incest (kinda), intersexism)

This is where we get to my theorising. Because in a science fiction context, and specifically a time-travel one, there is one quite famous short story that has a protagonist with zero family connections: '—All You Zombies—' by Robert A Heinlein.

(Fun fact: "All You Zombies" is also the name of a planned Class Ongoing story, once I get the time to resume that.)

You may also be familiar with the movie adaptation: 'Predestination'. It's also seemingly the inspiration for all sorts of similar stories, from 'The Man Who Folded Himself' to Red Dwarf and Futurama.

You might see where i'm going from that last one...

(Again disclaimer: if you seek it out, that this story may be quite triggering. It also was written in 1959. While it's actually somewhat respectable of a trans (kind-of, you'll see what I mean - I'll generally use the pronouns used in the text below) protagonist, it includes sexism, intersexism bordering on medical horror, and selfcest/incest.)

In 1963 (funnily enough), a lonely, orphaned 18 year old woman named Jane has a sexual encounter with a man in a park which ends up leaving her pregnant. When complications arise, the doctor discovers during a successful caesarian she's actually intersex, with a form of ovotesticular syndrome, with her immature, partially developed organs "a mess". He removes the now damaged womb, ovaries etc and, without consent, 'rearranged things so that [they] can develop properly as a man".

A few weeks later, the baby is stolen from the hospital by a man.

Despite all this tragedy, they do decide to complete their transition, restarting life as a man. He struggles to find work, but eventually finds himself making a living selling fake confession stories to magazines as "the Unmarried Mother".

Years later In a bar, he tells his story to a Bartender. After it all, the Bartender reveals he's actually a time agent and offers the chance to see his baby's father again. He drops him off in 1963 to find the man.

Meanwhile, in 1964, the Bartender steals a baby from a hospital, and drops her off at an orphanage in 1945.

The Bartender returns to the Unmarried Mother a month later in 1963, just in time to see him leaving a lonely young woman he met with in a park...

"Now you know who he is", the Bartender says, "—and after you think it over you’ll know who you are... and if you think hard enough, you’ll figure out who the baby is... and who I am.” He drops the Unmarried Mother off in 1983, where he can be recruited by the Temporal Bureau.

The Bartender, Jane, the Unmarried Mother, the kidnapper, the Father, and the Baby are revealed to all be one person, a family tree onto themself. The perfect time agent, causally disconnected from the rest of humanity and thus safe from Faction Paradox - if they are truly human at all (possibly explaining their biological bi-sexuality).

Thus, literally, having no relatives.

NO, OF COURSE I don't think this is what's up with Ruby!

But...

A lot of people have suggested that the woman who drops off Ruby could be herself. Obviously this doesn't necessarily mean Ruby is her own mother - let alone her own intersex father, child, and recruiter too!

But the story did come to my mind watching the Christmas special, and I do think the less squicky side of it, the 'perfect time agent' angle is worth considering. Could Ruby really be causally/genetically disconnected from the rest of humanity? Could she literally have no close relatives?

Assuming her DNA is not taken from any other person, but some semi-random mix of genes, she really may not match with anyone. At most, she would have some distant false matches, who share very small portions of DNA with her just by statistical fluke.

"BUT", I hear you say, "Didn't she get rewritten by the literal butterfly effect in episode one? She must be connected to humanity!"

Yes she did. But you know else happened?

She was still there.

Seriously think about it. Time travel fiction often doesn't think about the full consequences of time being altered even slightly, especially for a gag, but think about it literally. If all of human history was changed and a whole new species, possibly descended from Silurians, became dominant on the planet...

... why would the Doctor still happen to be travelling with someone with a name beginning with 'Rub-' who looks like Millie Gibson? Remember her name comes from Ruby Road... so does 'Ruby Road' exist on Rubathon's Earth? The Church presumably doesn't, unless there's a lizard Jesus...

At the very least we can point to the Web of Time being particularly reinforced around Ruby for some reason, even after all the damage it's taken between Flux and now, letting Ruby persist into the new timeline. This is explicitly confirmed in the last episode, with the Doctor calling it a fixed point.

At worst, it may imply whatever 'designed' Ruby just needs her to meet the Doctor, no matter what the dominant species on Earth is.

Mind you, both of these do open questions about what happened in the timeline where Ruby was eaten by the Goblin King. Maybe targetting her after her birth left her temporally vulnerable? Or maybe it was a necessary event, to bring the Doctor to Ruby Road...

Add this to some other things we've seen this season:

In Space Babies, we're introduced to the concept of 'baby farms', allowing people to be loomed born without a parent.

We also know, at least, that Ruby registers as human to the TARDIS (though given Sutekh's influence, who knows how trustworthy that scan was now!).

In The Devil's Chord, Ruby is not erased by Maestro destroying humanity. Granted we can put this down to the Doctor/TARDIS, and how time travel effects people's biodata, but I think it could be a misdirect.

(Interestingly there was a very similar plotpoint in "City of the Daleks", the Eleventh Doctor adventure game, which saw the New Dalek Paradigm invading Earth in...1963. Unlike Ruby, Amy eventually actually does start to fade, needing a 'chronon blocker' to stabilise her. Hey remember how we just heard the word 'chronon' used a bunch in the show.)

In Boom, the Ambulance is entirely unable to find a next of kin for Ruby, despite seemingly having her in its records. This is a little hard to dissect, as you could take a lot of different interpretations away from it. At the very least, it suggests Ruby doesn't have any living descendents in the 51st century. Carla probably doesn't either (which makes sense with her not having any bio-kids, and Ruby seemingly being the only child she fully adopted rather than fostered?) But for its extensive records, it's notable it still couldn't find anyone after that, even presumably with access to Ruby's DNA like the genealogists had.

Everything in 73 Yards.

Between the snow falling in each episode, plus context in The Legend of Ruby Sunday, we know that Christmas Eve on Ruby Road, while fixed, is also uniquely vulnerable and 'raw'. With the woman's changing reactions to the Doctor, it's also flexible enough to change, somewhat.

Similarly, the possible connection between the woman who dropped Ruby off and the woman in 73 Yards, between her face not being visible and the CCTV camera being around 73 yards / 66.6 metres away. And if that woman really was Ruby, then maybe the parallels to All You Zombies may not be as insane as they sound.

[arkipelagic]

The faces of Aeta peoples. Photos by Ophelia Persson, from “DNA study reveals evidence for the presence of Islander Denisovans in the Philippines” (2021) by Larena Lab, Uppsala University.

Aeta is often used as an umbrella term referring to specific ethnic groups in the Philippines distinguished by their much darker complexions and often curly- to kinky-textured hair, such as the Batak of Palawan and Mamanwa of Mindanao. Due to their distinct physical appearances they are commonly misidentified as modern-day descendants of prehistoric Africans who managed to find their way to the Philippine archipelago in Southeast Asia. In reality, they are descended from the same major populations non-Aeta Filipinos are also descended from, i.e., First Sundaland People and later Austronesian migrants.

Today, Aeta peoples are a recognized albeit underserved minority alongside other (non-Aeta) Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines.

[specialagentartemis]

Did this question in World Archaeology class again today, and it always makes me curious how people conceptualize this:

There is a correct answer.

Explanation:

It’s Africa.

This is one of the major pieces of evidence for the “out of Africa” model of human evolution and dispersal.

The idea is that humans have been evolving in Africa for 300,000-some years; every human being that’s not (ethnically) from Africa is descended from a group that moved out of Africa at some point in the last hundred thousand or so years. Which reduces the total amount of genetic diversity present among the people who went to any other given place—they’re starting from a smaller group! The relatively low amount of genetic difference between people even widespread across the world also suggests a relatively late date of already fully evolved anatomically modern humans out of Africa (“relatively late” meaning ~110,000 years ago, that is—as opposed to the “multiregional evolution hypothesis” that suggested that human beings evolved in a widespread manner in various places across Africa and Eurasia simultaneously over 1-2 million years).

The people who evolved “in place” from earlier Homo erectus dispersals in Europe and western Asia evolved into Neanderthals, not Homo sapiens. Were Neanderthals human? It’s a philosophical question more than a scientific one, but evidently humans 100,000-40,000 years ago thought so, because people with ancestry from pretty much everywhere that’s not Africa have a little bit of Neanderthal DNA in their mix! Europe and Asia primarily—unsurprising, as that’s where Neanderthals lived.

Neanderthals didn’t live in Africa, though. (There is evidence of some gene flow back and forth with African people having small amounts of Neanderthal genetic markers, because human movement is almost never just one way. And 100,000 years is a long time.) But even without any significant intermixing with Neanderthals, the original genetic wellspring of humanity makes Africa the most genetically diverse place on Earth.

[kemetic-dreams]

What is the DNA haplogroup of modern Egyptians?

Haplogroup E1b1b1

Wikipedia (E1b1b): E-M215, also known as E1b1b and formerly E3b, is a major human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup. It is a division of the macro-haplogroup E-M96, which is defined by the single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation M215. In other words, it is one of the major patrilineages of humanity, linking from father-to-son back to a common male-line ancestor ("Y-chromosomal Adam"). It is a subject of discussion and study in genetics as well as genetic genealogy, archaeology, and historical linguistics.

The E-M215 haplogroup has two ancient branches that contain all the known modern E-M215, E-M35 and E-M281 subclades. Of the latter two, the only branch that has been confirmed in a native population outside of Ethiopia is E-M35. E-M35 in turn has two known branches, haplogroup E-V68 and haplogroup E-Z827, which contain by far the majority of all modern E-M215 carrying men. E-V68 and E-V257 have been found in highest numbers in North Africa and the Horn of Africa, but also in lower numbers in parts of the Middle East and Europe, and in isolated populations of Southern Africa.

The Study authors consider Mtdna L0 thru L4 exclusively African.

Wikipedia quote: Haplogroup L3 descendants notwithstanding, the designation "haplogroup L" is typically used to designate the family of mtDNA clades that are most frequently found in Sub-Saharan Africa. However, all non-African haplogroups coalesce onto either haplogroup M or haplogroup N, and both these macrohaplogroups are simply sub-branches of haplogroup L3. Consequently, L in its broadest definition is really a paragroup containing all of modern humanity, and all human mitochondrial DNA from around the world are subclades of haplogroup L.

repeat - and all human mitochondrial DNA from around the world are subclades of haplogroup L.

Basal J*(xJ1,J2) is found at its highest frequencies among the Soqotri/Socotra (71.4%).

The people of the Island of Soqotri/Socotra are the genetically PUREST of ALL ARABS.

This is what they look like!

[hadesoftheladies]

i've been on radblr for a while, and maybe it's because of the specific users i follow being woc or disabled, but recently i've been seeing more ableist and racist radblr users crawl from whatever hole they've been molting in

in light of a recent conversation thread between @menalez and two whitefems, i've come to see the issue other radblr users have been talking about

radblr lacks a culture of intersectionality. there are many white/straight/abled women here who think solidarity means we only cater to their liberation, and they can ditch us whenever they please. it is one-sided support, and isn't solidarity at all. they are used to being centered, used to seeing themselves as default woman, used to seeing themselves as the standard of feminism and womanhood. their problems as more deserving.

i'm not going to use this post to diagnose radblr, but to say why these women are insanely stupid

racist and imperial radfems have been bold in their assertion that their empires are somehow benevolent, neutral, helpful to outsiders. they have endorsed their militaries, asserted that they are genetically and intellectually superior, and that they're oh so tired of stupid, backward women from stupid, backward countries whining about how colonization improved their society. (and some western black users have agreed).

and it's so STUPID because . . . how do you not see you're approving of the structure of your own oppression while complaining about the injustice of it?

you can acknowledge that men have misattributed women's achievements to men, that they have destroyed, twisted, and erased their history. you can acknowledge that the reason there weren't as many women geniuses as men was because of the brutal subjugation and social, economic barriers women faced, or some just had their ideas stolen and died unnamed and unattached to their invention. you understand how women's language, spaces, and philosophy have been hijacked by the male perspective in everything, from religion, to education, to literature. in marxist or materialist analysis, you understand that economy creates culture.

but you can't understand any of that when it comes to majority world countries? you mysteriously lose your capacity to analyze culture when you're at the top? your countries are rich because they're just so gosh darn good at being rich, aren't they? stolen wealth and labor doesn't give you a head start at all! and if money is power, and you have the money, you can get away with stealing even more, but that only applies to men, see? not our nice, lovely, governments! colonization and war aren't actually that bad or brutal and don't have any lasting negative effects! neocolonial systems don't exist! it's not like our beloved empires have anything to do with killing the cultures of billions because they can, they have, and it is in their best political and economic interest to. black people never did anything significant! this is a fact, and has nothing to do with deliberate propaganda from imperial countries! imperialist propaganda, ha! imagine that? african and asian people can't be smarter than white people, because . . . . genetics! whitefems on radblr care so much about science when it comes to transwomen, but their brains turn to mush when it comes to thinking whiteness somehow genetically increases intelligence. biology, everybody!

it's honestly funny. like you're trading one regime for another, congrats! you're anti-revolution! you can get off our backs and stop using our plight as examples of your oppression.

and to the british storm trooper that claimed her intelligence was genetic--if you truly believe that, you've got two options:

consider that this statement is unscientific, racist, and false, or

take an ancestry DNA test and find out if you're adopted :)

[justinspoliticalcorner]

David Smith at The Guardian:

The party was buzzing, the confidence was surging and Kenneth Stewart was riding the Trump train. “He’s masculine,” explained Stewart, an African American man from Chicago. “He brings a lot of energy. He talks about things that we can understand. He talks about building. He talks about the auto industry. He talks about a lot of stuff that people in the Rust belt care about.” Stewart was a guest at Donald Trump’s election watch event in West Palm Beach, Florida, on Tuesday night and celebrated his victory over Democratic vice-president Kamala Harris. The result said much about gender, race and the new media landscape. It also represented a populist backlash against America’s perceived elites. In the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic, millions felt a distrust of authorities that ordered them to wear masks, close schools and go into lockdown. They felt frustrated by post-pandemic inflation that pushed up the prices of groceries and petrol. They felt they would never be able to buy a house, that the American dream was slipping away. They were looking for someone to blame – and for a champion who could fix it.

They believed they’d found him in Trump and, despite his two impeachments and 34 criminal convictions, returned him to power. He made gains among nearly every demographic group. In part, he was riding a wave of anti-incumbency fervour that has swept through major democracies, battering the left and the right in the aftershocks of the pandemic.

That will provide little comfort to Democrats, who raised a billion dollars yet lost the national popular vote. They have come to be seen as the party of the highly educated who earn more than $100,000 a year and live in big cities such as New York and Washington. They are perceived as out of tune with people who work with their hands and shower after work instead of before. Stewart said on Tuesday night: “The other side, they’re only talking about feelings. They’re talking about Trump’s bad. But come to me with tangibles. A lot of Black men just want tangibles. We just want jobs. We want to see what our fathers had. We want to see what our grandfathers had, especially in the Rust belt.”

America is a nation of cavernous inequality with few safety nets. The last populist convulsion came 15 years ago after the Great Recession. On the left, it spawned Occupy Wall Street, a response to economic inequality, corporate greed and the influence of money in politics. On the right, it gave rise to the Tea Party, fuelled by rage against elites, distrust in government and racial hostility toward President Barack Obama. The Democratic and Republican parties each absorbed these movements into their political DNA. They manifested in the 2016 presidential election when the harmful effects of globalisation, trade and de-industrialisation took centre stage. Leftwing senator Bernie Sanders drew huge crowds in the Democratic primary but lost, while non-politician Trump drew huge crowds in the Republican primary and won.

The pandemic, and subsequent inflation, provided another trigger moment. Trump, a Manhattan billionaire, tapped into anti-establishment sentiment and bad economic vibes to style himself as an unlikely hero of the working class. He promised sweeping tariffs on foreign goods and the protection of manufacturing jobs inside the US. The pitch was infused with race-baiting, scapegoating and xenophobia: Trump claimed that undocumented immigrants were draining resources, causing crime and destroying communities. His demagoguery extended to an entirely fictitious claim that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating pet cats and dogs. The former president painted Democrats as an elite out of touch with the affordability and cost-of-living crises facing those further down the economic ladder. Harris proposed a federal ban on price-gouging but it was too little too late. She did not help her cause during their debate by citing investment bank Goldman Sachs’ support for her financial plans as a reason to vote for her.

Claire McCaskill, a former Democratic senator for Missouri, told MSNBC that Trump “knew our country better than we did”. She recalled: “I grew up in a party where we were for the underdog. We were for the little guy. We are now the elite. We are no longer seen as the party for the little guy. “He was seen as the party for the little guy. He was seen as the ultimate disrupter and yes, the edges were very rough but in everyone’s own minds they sanded them down to the point of acceptability and, as it turns out, there’s a lot of craving in America for fear and anger – driven by lies.” America’s political class divide has been growing for years. In the 2016 election, Trump won 2,584 counties nationwide while Hillary Clinton carried only 472. But Clinton’s counties accounted for nearly two-thirds of America’s economic output, the Brookings Institution thinktank found.

The split finds expression in the way people dress, the TV shows they watch and the ways they interact (or don’t). In 2016, Trump won 76% of counties that contained a Cracker Barrel, a restaurant offering southern homestyle cooking on interstate highways, and just 22% of counties with Whole Foods, an organic national supermarket chain. The Cook Report noted the 54% gap compared with a 19% difference in the 1992 election. On the eve of the 2024 election, Trump held a campaign rally in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where some supporters wore miners’ helmets. Among the speakers was rightwing media personality Megyn Kelly, who told the crowd that Trump will look out for “our forgotten boys and our forgotten men, guys like you, guys like these guys who’ve got the calluses on their hands, who work for a living, the beards and the tats, maybe have a beer after work, and don’t want to be judged by people like Oprah and Beyoncé, who will never have to face the consequences of her disastrous economic policies. These guys will. He gets it. President Trump gets it. He will not look at our boys like they are second-class citizens.”

An exit poll on Tuesday showed Trump winning voters whose household incomes are between $30,000 and $100,000. His sense of grievance struck a chord with people who feel left behind and sneered at as “deplorables” or “garbage” by Democratic leaders, journalists and Hollywood celebrities. Joe Walsh, a former Republican representative and Tea Party activist who campaigned for Harris, said by phone: “The perception is that these people are elites. That’s what these folks have told me for the last five years. Many of them acknowledge Trump’s an asshole but they say: ‘Look, the Democrats are looking down on me.’ I heard that all the time.”

How did Don The Con win? He rode on backlash to elitism (even though Trump is an elitist himself).

[ptseti]

WYCLEF: WHY AM I SO SEXY? I’M AFRICAN!

Haitian-born rapper, Wyclef Jean, recently joked he used to ask himself ‘why am I so tough, sexy and good looking?’ He then had a DNA test that showed he was 80 per cent Nigerian! His quip is a reminder of the indelible link between the Caribbean and Africa, brought about by the European slave trade.

In the 16th-century millions of African men, women and children were shipped abroad and sold into slavery in the Caribbean Islands, America and Europe. Most came from areas now part of modern-day countries such as Nigeria, Benin, Senegal, Ghana, and the Congo region. Major ethnic groups that contributed to the Haitian population include the Yoruba, Igbo, Fon, and Kongo.

Wyclef identities as an African, something that was instilled in him by his parents from a young age. His DNA test in 2019 just proved what he always knew.

The musician was speaking at a recent annual meeting of the African Export-Import Bank in the Bahamas. It states its aim is to strengthen economic ties between Africa and the Caribbean. But, as Wyclef explains, those ties run a lot deeper.

Video Credit: @afreximbanktv

[realjaysumlin]

The ancient remains of Great Zimbabwe

"The ancient remains of Great Zimbabwe" https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20220925-the-ancient-remains-of-great-zimbabwe

So many lies told by people who hates anything Black or African, even within this article with all it's good intentions try to explain that Chinese and Arab people traded with the Great Zimbabwe People however it was Africans themselves trading with each other.

Melanin controls hair colors and textures including the following facial features of eyes, lips, skin and facial features. Clines and frolic acids and alleles have a lot to do with these features as well.

No one didn't have to travel to Africa to have a multifaceted appearance as if Africans didn't have the ability to reproduce people who looked like others worldwide because any two dark skin humans can reproduce every so call nationality on our planet.

This is just how natural selection works. I myself like many of you who has dark skin can bare witness to the albino family members as well as those with slant eyes and so on.

We can see this within the Aboriginals People worldwide including Australia and the South Pacific. We know who we are as humans and we need to start telling our own stories about who we all are as humans.

I'm a scientist and I know how science uses words to try to explain our ancestry but there is one thing that even science can tell you that our modern human DNA shares an African root and all of us living on earth today has it.

Before the human genome project everything was still an hypothesis but not anymore because everything on our planet shares the same genetic code. Every life forms of plants, insects, animals as well as humans are related.

Humans have less variation than any living life forms on earth. This is something that that majority of people outside of science doesn't know or understand.

All life forms on earth came from water, this is why our body mass is made up as mostly water. You can listen to people who invented races if you want to but you will be as stupid and ignorant as they are to our modern world.

Facts are just facts so just live with it and science nor do I myself give one thought about you not agreeing with me.

[ausetkmt]

What happened to the other Human Species?

DNA is thus especially important in the study of evolution. The amount of difference in DNA is a test of the difference between one species and another – and thus how closely or distantly related they are.

While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average – study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%. The bonobo (Pan paniscus), which is the close cousin of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), differs from humans to the same degree. The DNA difference with gorillas, another of the African apes, is about 1.6%. Most importantly, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans all show this same amount of difference from gorillas. A difference of 3.1% distinguishes us and the African apes from the Asian great ape, the orangutan. How do the monkeys stack up?  All of the great apes and humans differ from rhesus monkeys, for example, by about 7% in their DNA.

Geneticists have come up with a variety of ways of calculating the percentages, which give different impressions about how similar chimpanzees and humans are. The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, for example, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes.

No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes.

The strong similarities between humans and the African great apes led Charles Darwin in 1871 to predict that Africa was the likely place where the human lineage branched off from other animals – that is, the place where the common ancestor of chimpanzees, humans, and gorillas once lived. The DNA evidence shows an amazing confirmation of this daring prediction. The African great apes, including humans, have a closer kinship bond with one another than the African apes have with orangutans or other primates. Hardly ever has a scientific prediction so bold, so ‘out there’ for its time, been upheld as the one made in 1871 – that human evolution began in Africa.

The DNA evidence informs this conclusion, and the fossils do, too. Even though Europe and Asia were scoured for early human fossils long before Africa was even thought of, ongoing fossil discoveries confirm that the first 4 million years or so of human evolutionary history took place exclusively on the African continent. It is there that the search continues for fossils at or near the branching point of the chimpanzee and human lineages from our last common ancestor.

Primate Family Tree

Due to billions of years of evolution, humans share genes with all living organisms. The percentage of genes or DNA that organisms share records their similarities. We share more genes with organisms that are more closely related to us.

Humans belong to the biological group known as Primates, and are classified with the great apes, one of the major groups of the primate evolutionary tree. Besides similarities in anatomy and behavior, our close biological kinship with other primate species is indicated by DNA evidence. It confirms that our closest living biological relatives are chimpanzees and bonobos, with whom we share many traits. But we did not evolve directly from any primates living today.

DNA also shows that our species and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor species that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. The last common ancestor of monkeys and apes lived about 25 million years ago.

[footytea]

To add to the discourse, I too don’t believe all woc are smart and have a personality while all white women are duds. But if we were to speak of a majority, literally statistically whites are less intelligent than people of colour. There is a psychological DNA methylation paper on why this is so, because whites for time immemorial were rich and wealthy lords and ladies and never had to do a thing for themselves. White women were wives who had everything handed to them while people of colour had to work their way up and develop a lot of their skills and intelligence to get by in the world. Generations of this alters brain chemistry and DNA (I’m a clinical psychologist). Therefore people of colour, by a majority are smarter than white people. They just lack the exposure or money to showcase that therefore it’s not on a world level.

I’m white myself, but I don’t think there’s a race smarter than the Indians. They are literally taking over the world, and were the richest country before the brits colonised them for their manpower, brain power and spices.

I request ya’ll to just google something as simple as the world Math olympiad and see for yourselves that literally every contestant is either Indian, Chinese or African. Even TEAM USA!! Go to Uni for masters, it’s filled with Indians and Chinese. Us whites don’t even consider college important while the Indians, Chinese and Japanese think you’re uneducated if you don’t have a masters at least 😂 Education is not solely intelligence, but it’s a big part of forming your brain, knowledge and exposure to the world.

Every race has their exception so yes too, there are supremely smart white people and supremely dumb people of colour. But for the general population of the world, statistically and brain chemistry wise, people of colour are smarter - yes. Every bloody big CEO in the world is Indian, the biggest pool of scientists in the world are Indians and Chinese so are the docs. London hospitals are majority black, brown and asian doctors. Proof is in the pudding. This isn’t meant to shade white people at all. It’s simply the truth.

.

[ognimdo2002]

Saola (Pseudoryx nghetinhensis) – Not a Typically a Cow 🐄

The saola (Pseudoryx nghetinhensis), also called spindlehorn, Asian unicorn, or infrequently, Vu Quang bovid, is one of the world's rarest large mammals, a forest-dwelling bovine native to the Annamite Range in Vietnam and Laos. It was described in 1993 following a discovery of remains in Vũ Quang National Park by a joint survey of the Vietnamese Ministry of Forestry and the World Wide Fund for Nature.

It is the only species in the genus Pseudoryx. The saola is the member of the wild cattle, but it literally not a cattle at all, but same appearance as an antelope. A recent sequencing study of ribosomal mitochondrial DNA of a large taxon sample divides the bovid family into two major subfamilial clades. The first clade is the subfamily Bovinae consisting of three tribes: Bovini (cattle and buffaloes, including the saola), Tragelaphini (Strepsicerotini) (African spiral-horned bovids) and Boselaphini (the nilgai and four-horned antelope).

[arkipelagic]

a too-common misconception about the origins of filipinos is that we are all descended from the aeta. we are not. “aeta” refers to a specific ethnic group native to certain places in luzon such as zambales and pampanga, but is also commonly used as an umbrella term for several related ethnic groups across the philippine archipelago. they are identified by physical characteristics such as dark skin and very curly hair (leading to a false belief that they are descendants of black africans) as opposed to those of majority of the country who have lighter skin and hair that is either straight or of looser curl patterns (also falsely believed to be markers of the so-called malay race.)

the aeta are an ethnic minority; as of 2010, there were a documented <100,000 out of millions of filipino citizens identifying as such. it is clear majority of filipinos are not of aeta descent. so where does this myth that all filipinos “descend” from the aeta come from?

generations of miseducation has led the average filipino to believe that, out of the hundreds of ethnic groups native to the philippines, it is the aeta in particular who are the original people who came to the philippines prior to the advent of the austronesian expansion. in other words, filipinos view the aeta as a pure people who are remnants of the old world.

this is not true because:

DNA evidence from the luzon aeta, mamanwa ata, batak, & other similar peoples indicate ancestry from BOTH the earliest settlers of what is now the philippines (commonly referred to colloquially and in the literature as negritos but also sometimes as basal australasians and first sundaland peoples) and later migrants associated with the austronesian expansion.

all other native populations in the philippines save for igorot peoples also show admixture from both negrito/basal australasian/first sundaland peoples and later migrants, most significantly the austronesian speakers. what’s notable is the varying degrees of admixture among aetas and non-aetas.

two graphic charts showing the peopling of the philippines and genetic admixture in modern populations. taken from the study, “Multiple migrations to the Philippines during the last 50,000 years” (2021) by Maximillian Larena et al.

i think what has happened is that “aeta” has become synonymous with the earliest inhabitants of the philippines, the real name for these ancient peoples being unknown to us moderns. it is only the flawed tendency to view indigenous peoples as unchanging relics of the past that has led to the biggest mistake filipinos make when discussing our origins: that is, the constant misuse of the term “aeta” to mean “pureblooded original people” when in reality aeta peoples are also descended from later migrants. when people say filipinos are descended from the aeta, they really mean to say filipinos are descended from the first settlers.

aeta peoples are our contemporaries; they are not our living progenitors but their own people with their own languages, ancestral lands, cultures, and histories.

[beardedmrbean]

Hey I was trying to find what ancestry which it comes to tribes most African Americans have and your mutual (I think helped) https://www.tumblr.com/theconstitutionisgayculture/693392069742542849

And I found out the Yoruba are the majority of North American African slaves ancestry. And they also the biggest tribe in Nigeria

Is it wrong I went “OOOOOOOOOOOOH” as I saw one Nigerian woman that look just like my late godmother and now I know why.

Just wondering despite the dna ancestry this isn’t taught to Africa Americans, especially it would help end the whole pan Africa thing

…Though Nigerians would have to deal with annoying ass black activists Americans, they probably going struggle some benin with some Dahomey ancestry for that.

But I found out the Mandinka tribe make up most of southern United state slavery ancestry. I mean like in New Orleans and even in Brazil. And tbh I know something was different about Louisianan blacks

Well at least we know why New Orleans Creoles are raging capitalists

It the Mansa Musa blood flowing in them.

You know with the whole new Princess and the frog theme ride. Disney made up new lore and they confirm Tiana open up her own company that still exist today. I kinda want to write a story where her descendants does a dna test and found out they have Mandinka ancestry hence their great great grandmother whole business idea…obviously it other reasons but still funny.

Not mutuals but @theconstitutionisgayculture are in the same circle

As for which group, it would be whichever ones were closest to the Dahomey and whoever else was picking people up and selling them since there were lots of them going on.

10 or so million people need several suppliers, even if only like 3-400,000 of them came to the US (people seem to forget that like >90% went to SA, not that that makes things better but spread the blame please) Mexico started late and just enslaved it's indigenous population, in what would be called a genocide today I think.

Dahomey is right there in the Benin spot where we got 16% it looks like SE Africa is news to me.

Not sure if the various DNA tests can pinpoint a particular group, maybe to the level of "Bantu" which is a incredibly broad spread of people so hopefully better than that.

You said Yourba

The Yoruba people are a West African ethnic group who mainly inhabit parts of Nigeria, Benin, and Togo.

That would fit for Dahomey at least, cuz Benin.

Here's the Mandinka, which that oddly enough jives with Django Unchained

Seeing a lot of Fula in there, that was the group that did the Fula jihads so forcibly converted to Islam, shipped to the Americas, or possibly castrated but absolutely sold to Arabic groups were their choices then.

Interesting.

This is mostly me just putting up what I'm seeing so far if you're confused it's ok so am I.

Well at least we know why New Orleans Creoles are raging capitalists It the Mansa Musa blood flowing in them.

New Orleans is a odd cross section of the US population, even way back when.

It was still racist AF, but the French connection created some odd population pockets,

Louis Armstrong with his Lithuanian Jewish neighbors who well.

In his memoir, Louis Armstrong + the Jewish Family in New Orleans, La., the Year of 1907, he described his discovery that this family was also subject to discrimination by "other white folks" who felt that they were better than Jews: "I was only seven years old but I could easily see the ungodly treatment that the white folks were handing the poor Jewish family whom I worked for."

Guy wore a Star of David always, in their honor they made a big difference for him, but I'm stopping there or I'll go into tangent land.

place is just strange, and the locals wouldn't have it any other way

You know with the whole new Princess and the frog theme ride. Disney made up new lore and they confirm Tiana open up her own company that still exist today. I kinda want to write a story where her descendants does a dna test and found out they have Mandinka ancestry hence their great great grandmother whole business idea…obviously it other reasons but still funny.

That could be fun, if you do it be sure and send it this way so I can read it, I may wind up totally confused but that's ok.

[dnaamericaapp]

African American LGBTQ Trailblazers Who Made History

From 1960s civil rights activist Bayard Rustin (featured in the photo) to Chicago's first lesbian mayor, Lori Lightfoot, Black LGBTQ Americans have long made history with innumerable contributions to politics, art, medicine and a host of other fields.

“As long as there have been Black people, there have been Black LGBTQ and same-gender-loving people,” David J. Johns, executive director of the National Black Justice Coalition, told NBC News. “Racism combined with the forces of stigma, phobia, discrimination and bias associated with gender and sexuality have too often erased the contributions of members of our community."

Stormé DeLarverie was called the "guardian of lesbians in the Village." Beyond her LGBTQ activism, DeLarverie also organized and performed at fundraisers for women who suffered from domestic violence and their children.

James Baldwin is perhaps best known for his 1955 collection of essays, "Notes of a Native Son," and his groundbreaking 1956 novel, "Giovanni's Room," which depicts themes of homosexuality and bisexuality. Baldwin spent a majority of his literary and activist career educating others about Black and queer identity, as he did during his famous lecture titled “Race, Racism, and the Gay Community” at a meeting of the New York chapter of Black and White Men Together (now known as Men of All Colors Together) in 1982.

Audre Lorde, a self-described “Black, lesbian, feminist, mother, poet, warrior," made lasting contributions in the fields of feminist theory, critical race studies and queer theory through her pedagogy and writing. Among her most notable works are “Coal” (1976), “The Black Unicorn” (1978), “The Cancer Journals” (1980) and “Zami: A New Spelling of My Name” (1982).

Ernestine Eckstein was a leader in the New York chapter of Daughters of Bilitis, the first lesbian civil and political rights organization in the United States. She attended "Annual Reminder" picket protests and was frequently one of the only women — and the only Black woman — present at early LGBTQ rights protests.

There are plenty more.

DNA America

“It’s what we know, not what you want us to believe.”