Black People : Aboriginal Australians descend from the first humans to leave Africa, DNA sequence reveals

By that time modern europeans and asians had already evolved and were spread across Europe and Asia respectively...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_early_modern_humans

Anatomically modern humans first emerged in East Africa, some 100 000 to 200 000 years ago. An exodus from Africa over the Arabian Peninsula around 60 000 years ago brought modern humans to Eurasia, with one group rapidly settling coastal areas around the Indian Ocean and one group migrating north to steppes of Central Asia.[23] A mitochondrial DNAsequence of two Cro-Magnons from the Paglicci Cave, Italy, dated to 23 000 and 24 000 years old (Paglicci 52 and 12), identified the mtDNA as Haplogroup N, typical of the latter group.[24] The inland group is the founder of North and East Asians (the "Mongol" people), Caucasoids and large sections of the Middle East and North African population. Migration from the Black Sea area into Europe started some 45 000 years ago, probably along the Danubian corridor. By 20 000 years ago, the whole of Europe was settled.

An overweight worn-out misshapen figurine with what could be braids does not represent anything and should not be used as evidence to find out what europeans looked like at that time.
You are seriously confusing fact with fable. In reference to this topic I suggest finding a map which shows the pattern of migration which I believe predates the European known as cro magnons.
 
What resources dost thou present as superior to Wikipedia?

Not that I disagree with all elements of your statement, but I'm interested in what you would deem a "valid source".

Wikipedia, in my opinion, is one of the best resources on the web.
True, it is not to be used as a source for formal research, but how many people here are conducting formal research of one variant or another?

I wouldn't know half the stuff I do today had it not been for Wikipedia.

I would recommend a book. The internet does not compare.

Besides forums, and blogs, the only thing decent about the internet is that one can find books.

Wikipedia, for the most part, is written by White racists for a White racist agenda. Pardon my White talk (I had spoken with them once upon a time), but the founder of Wikipedia is a "Libertarian." That should be enough said {though between you and me, I no longer know what that means--I mostly remember not siding with it. Though, I suspect that you have once sided with them (From what I remember, there are similarities for instance in the economic view)? In short however, they are a lot of ahistorical, unrealistic armchair thinkers (them not you).}

Oh and did I say racist! This is off-topic, but I decided to show that there would be a page on "Black Violence." Not explicitly, but there was on "Race and Crime in the United States.": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States

Here's how it starts:
The relationship between race and crime in the United States has been a topic of public controversy and scholarly debate for more than a century.[1] Since the 1980s, the debate has centered around the causes of and contributing factors to the disproportional representation of racial minorities (particularly African Americans, hence "Black crime") at all stages of the criminal justice system, including arrests, prosecutions and incarcerations.[2]
Many theories of causation have been proposed, most of which assume predominantly social and/or environmental causes; while a few others argue for a reconsideration of the role of biology.[3]

One does not need to read any further--and I haven't--though I can. Look at the first sentence--"scholarly debate" had been on the subject since post-enslavement. The second sentence quickly highlights African criminality. The final sentence vindicates biological considerations to African crime, quickly shaping the entire article into "Black crimes," a word actually used in this paragraph.

You can see who wrote this, for one can write the same paragraph with the same content, in a different way.

For instance:

Ever since African enslavement, race and crime has been improperly conflated. Worse, at the end of Jim Crow, in the 60s, more Africans have been imprisoned than before. Many theories are abound to explain this: one such a prominent theory is that Prison lobbyists partner with mainstream businesses to exploit Africans using the 13th amendment which allows prisoners to be legal slaves.​

Get it? It's rare to get an a-political writing, and Wikipedia is certainly not a-political!
 
I would recommend a book. The internet does not compare.

And which book would you recommend in place of Wikipedia?

The right tool for the right job. There are strengths and weaknesses to all tools.

I wouldn't consult a book for near time data that can be easily obtained via the Internet.

ABSiblings said:
Wikipedia, for the most part, is written by White racists for a White racist agenda.

I'll disagree. Wikipedia reveals much that others would rather you remain ignorant of.

ABSiblings said:
Though, I suspect that you have once sided with them ...

A suspicion is not confirmation.

ABSiblings said:
(From what I remember, there are similarities for instance in the economic view)?

Things similar are not the same.
 
Things similar are not the same.

True. I do not mean offense. I only try to be cautious of many things, but then there's a balance.

Anyhow, I edited my above post to show an example of the racism.

As to which book? Honestly, any Pan-African African's work.

Maybe the BCD's: Ben, Clarke and Diop. Of course J.A. Rogers. Then go to Delany, then go to Nkrumah, then . . ..

The merit of White book is that even a broken clock is right twice a day. That's partly why many Pan-Africanist books feature White writings. However, a digital clock is only right once a day--half the time of say a White book--so it's not worth a lick. :)
 
If you are going to quote me at least don't take what I say out of context. Nubians are not southern Egyptians. They are Nilotic Africans. As were most Egyptians during era when that tomb painting was made. Nilotic Africans varied in complexion but mostly spoke Cushitic languages. The mistake you are making is trying to classify each group based on complexion. This is an old racist trick which will pass by these parts without getting checked.

That painting depicts egyptians as being brown skinned or tanned, different from Nubians (who are shown being very dark), Berbers and Middle Eastern (who are shown being light). They were probably a mixture of these ethnicities. Even their language was afro-asiatic, denoting an influence from these groups mentioned before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_language):

Of the language families included in the Afroasiatic phylum, Egyptian shows the most affinities to theCushitic, Semitic, and Berber families.[5]

Nubians and ancient egyptians were different: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubia#Nubia_and_Ancient_Egypt)

Ancient egyptians probably looked like what modern egyptians look today. They are ultimately a north african people, and should be treated as such: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Africa

The distinction between Northern Africa and the rest of Africa is historically and ecologically significant because of the effective barrier created by the Sahara. Throughout history this barrier has culturally separated the North from the rest of Africa and, as the seafaring civilizations of the Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans and others facilitated communication and migration across the Mediterranean, the cultures of North Africa became much more closely tied to Southwestern Asia and Europe than Sub-Saharan Africa. The Islamic influence in the area is significant, and North Africa, along with the Middle East, is a major part of the Arab World.
 

Donate

Support destee.com, the oldest, most respectful, online black community in the world - PayPal or CashApp

Latest profile posts

HODEE wrote on Etophil's profile.
Welcome to Destee
@Etophil
Destee wrote on SleezyBigSlim's profile.
Hi @SleezyBigSlim ... Welcome Welcome Welcome ... :flowers: ... please make yourself at home ... :swings:
Back
Top