My Ancestry dna ethnicity estimate
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Level 8

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#55 Mar 27, 2014
Deshret wrote:
<quoted text>
The roots of Rameses hair were checked and found to have had European DNA.
The Egyptians were mixed bloods, the warlike Blacks from the south conquered the Caucasians of the north. Anyone who can read a map and with basic geography can see the route the bloodlines took.
Either way, Egypt was not a contiguous single ethnicity, it was invaded several times, and one thing often overlooked is that the priests and Pharaoh classes were inbred, so, that means that they do not represent the actual ethnicity of their people, it's like finding the DNA of a Roman ruler in Italy, and then saying that the Celts in Britain were Roman...if you can't see this, then neither I nor common sense can help you.
People overrate Egypt, it was a cruel slave economy, constantly at war with other nations, its riches wasted on making a Pharaohs think they were Gods, where do people think the wealth stolen to make the Sphinx and pyramids came from? Egypt was very poor in resources, wood was a rarer commodity than gold, nearly every piece had to imported.
Then we have the the silly belief in an afterlife by taking out all your organs and sticking them in jars; the crazy belief that cats were gods -and then kill millions of them and mummify them as offerings, sacrifice was huge in Egypt and the pre-dynastic and 1st Dynasty certainly have good evidence for human sacrifice.
Would an advanced civilization really believe this crap? Would they also believe that the Sun disappeared at night and needed prayers to come back up in the morning, pushed by a beetle?
The Mesopotamians were much wiser, they knew we orbited the Sun, and their calculations regarding astronomy were that accurate that we now know that they were within 4% of today's computer figures...probably due to their superior number system, sexagesimal number systems are superior to denary, they also were the first to do Quadratic Equations, writing, the wheel...so many many accomplishments...
Egypt pales into insignificance compared with the likes of Babylon, think about that, Babylon was just a city, but the whole might of Egypt couldn't beat it.
Egypt steals the limelight because of the stupid and pointless pyramids, it hides the fact that civilization was greater and started somewhere else...the Indus Valley people, long long gone, were very remarkable too.
Fact is, when Egypt came up against Persians, Greeks and Romans, they lost, and lost badly...they only ever took on small nations and won...don't forget that they couldn't even beat the Hebrews -a bunch of goat herders gave them the run-around for centuries.
No, Blacks or Arabs can have Egypt, it is irrelevant to man's advances and really to history.
Whoever run the place, it ultimately failed, Caucasians conquered it, and it didn't survive as an empire today.
If you ever find an Ancient Egyptian nuclear power station or microprocessor, then I'll be impressed.
One thing is certain: Egypt was/is better than UK.

Since: Dec 13

Garner, NC

#56 Mar 27, 2014
Abdurratln wrote:
<quoted text>That makes no sense. How did you get 3% Eastern Europe? I do not believe it unless you can explain that. There are no eastern Europeans here. Maybe you mean Central Asian or something like that. The white man is desperate to prove everybody is related to white when we know dang well that is not5 true.
You make some very good points and I see what you mean by Central Asia. I was somewhat puzzled by the 3% Eastern European also when I received the results and I cannot offer an explanation for it with any high degree of certainty. This result did cause me to think back to the African and Black studies courses that I took some 20 to 25 years ago in which my professors often said that the black man was the original man not just in Africa but throughout the globe. The black man was first in Europe, Africa, Asia or anywhere else that you can think of. This 3% Eastern European represents a genetic marker as do all of the other percentages. This marker could in fact link back to my ancient black ancestors who inhabited Eastern Europe well before the whites who we most commonly associate with Eastern Europe. If you're interested, for further info on this subject you may want to google "black cultures of ancient Europe". Thanks for your comment.

Level 8

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#57 Mar 27, 2014
HeThatBelieveth wrote:
<quoted text>
You make some very good points and I see what you mean by Central Asia. I was somewhat puzzled by the 3% Eastern European also when I received the results and I cannot offer an explanation for it with any high degree of certainty. This result did cause me to think back to the African and Black studies courses that I took some 20 to 25 years ago in which my professors often said that the black man was the original man not just in Africa but throughout the globe. The black man was first in Europe, Africa, Asia or anywhere else that you can think of. This 3% Eastern European represents a genetic marker as do all of the other percentages. This marker could in fact link back to my ancient black ancestors who inhabited Eastern Europe well before the whites who we most commonly associate with Eastern Europe. If you're interested, for further info on this subject you may want to google "black cultures of ancient Europe". Thanks for your comment.
That makes sense. Thanks. But I do not buy any of that racial DNA crap. I think it is a waste of hard earned money. Eastern Europe has not ever had much contact with Africa we have had very little contact with them. It would make sense to me if they had said Central or Russian because Russians are actually more Asian than European. Look at Putin. He even has slanted eyes. LOL. If they had said Asian that would have linked you to India. But Europe is BS. They think you want white man's blood. LOL. In any case, I will google black cultures in ancient Europe although that does not interest me much.

One thing I noticed that I want to do some research on is that the Chinese had some African emperors. But I do not think there is much African blood in China. For one thing, there African connection probably came through Arabs who are only partially Africans.
Weis

Eskilstuna, Sweden

#58 Mar 27, 2014
HeThatBelieveth wrote:
<quoted text>
You make some very good points and I see what you mean by Central Asia. I was somewhat puzzled by the 3% Eastern European also when I received the results and I cannot offer an explanation for it with any high degree of certainty. This result did cause me to think back to the African and Black studies courses that I took some 20 to 25 years ago in which my professors often said that the black man was the original man not just in Africa but throughout the globe. The black man was first in Europe, Africa, Asia or anywhere else that you can think of. This 3% Eastern European represents a genetic marker as do all of the other percentages. This marker could in fact link back to my ancient black ancestors who inhabited Eastern Europe well before the whites who we most commonly associate with Eastern Europe. If you're interested, for further info on this subject you may want to google "black cultures of ancient Europe". Thanks for your comment.
Europe is a tiny continent. People moved around. Check out, on youtube, a BBC documentary called "100% English". A bunch proud natinalistic englishmen took DNA tests to determine their englishness. Non turned out to "English" as the doc proved that there is no such a thing as english DNA( Margaret Thatcher had alot of middle east DNA). They had admixtures from as far East Asia, Eastern europe, India and in one case SSA paternal lineage. These are the people that lay foundation of the United States, so it would not surprise me if you had DNA from all over euroasia.

What I do not understand is the distinction between Congo/Cameroun and Bantu. Congo is bantu through and through. What gives?
Weis

Eskilstuna, Sweden

#59 Mar 27, 2014
Deshret wrote:
<quoted text>
The roots of Rameses hair were checked and found to have had European DNA.
The Egyptians were mixed bloods, the warlike Blacks from the south conquered the Caucasians of the north. Anyone who can read a map and with basic geography can see the route the bloodlines took.
Either way, Egypt was not a contiguous single ethnicity, it was invaded several times, and one thing often overlooked is that the priests and Pharaoh classes were inbred, so, that means that they do not represent the actual ethnicity of their people, it's like finding the DNA of a Roman ruler in Italy, and then saying that the Celts in Britain were Roman...if you can't see this, then neither I nor common sense can help you.
People overrate Egypt, it was a cruel slave economy, constantly at war with other nations, its riches wasted on making a Pharaohs think they were Gods, where do people think the wealth stolen to make the Sphinx and pyramids came from? Egypt was very poor in resources, wood was a rarer commodity than gold, nearly every piece had to imported.
Then we have the the silly belief in an afterlife by taking out all your organs and sticking them in jars; the crazy belief that cats were gods -and then kill millions of them and mummify them as offerings, sacrifice was huge in Egypt and the pre-dynastic and 1st Dynasty certainly have good evidence for human sacrifice.
Would an advanced civilization really believe this crap? Would they also believe that the Sun disappeared at night and needed prayers to come back up in the morning, pushed by a beetle?
The Mesopotamians were much wiser, they knew we orbited the Sun, and their calculations regarding astronomy were that accurate that we now know that they were within 4% of today's computer figures...probably due to their superior number system, sexagesimal number systems are superior to denary, they also were the first to do Quadratic Equations, writing, the wheel...so many many accomplishments...
Egypt pales into insignificance compared with the likes of Babylon, think about that, Babylon was just a city, but the whole might of Egypt couldn't beat it.
Egypt steals the limelight because of the stupid and pointless pyramids, it hides the fact that civilization was greater and started somewhere else...the Indus Valley people, long long gone, were very remarkable too.
Fact is, when Egypt came up against Persians, Greeks and Romans, they lost, and lost badly...they only ever took on small nations and won...don't forget that they couldn't even beat the Hebrews -a bunch of goat herders gave them the run-around for centuries.
No, Blacks or Arabs can have Egypt, it is irrelevant to man's advances and really to history.
Whoever run the place, it ultimately failed, Caucasians conquered it, and it didn't survive as an empire today.
If you ever find an Ancient Egyptian nuclear power station or microprocessor, then I'll be impressed.
Nonsense. Garbage.

Level 8

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#60 Mar 28, 2014
Weis wrote:
<quoted text>
Europe is a tiny continent. People moved around. Check out, on youtube, a BBC documentary called "100% English". A bunch proud natinalistic englishmen took DNA tests to determine their englishness. Non turned out to "English" as the doc proved that there is no such a thing as english DNA( Margaret Thatcher had alot of middle east DNA). They had admixtures from as far East Asia, Eastern europe, India and in one case SSA paternal lineage. These are the people that lay foundation of the United States, so it would not surprise me if you had DNA from all over euroasia.
What I do not understand is the distinction between Congo/Cameroun and Bantu. Congo is bantu through and through. What gives?
When it comes to making sense of being an Africans, we cannot rely on DNA. It is a scam.

I also notice that Bantu issue. That makes two unanswered and unanswerable questions.
Rhaeem Izlaam

Athens, GA

#61 Apr 4, 2014
Abdurratln wrote:
<quoted text>
When it comes to making sense of being an Africans, we cannot rely on DNA. It is a scam.
I also notice that Bantu issue. That makes two unanswered and unanswerable questions.
There's no way scientist are going to tell anybody who you are really connected to because they hold the cards in their expertise. They will only show you want they want you to see and they can go beyond further into your past to see if you're connected to great African Queens/Kings.

I would take notice of such scientists because most likely they got the Feds breathing down their backs reminding them to BS you about your ancestry.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min USAsince1680 1,432,778
This is why no one takes afrocentrics seriously 6 min Redefined 507
Islam an empire of faith (Oct '12) 11 min dcool 7,391
Why do American Blacks think they're Egyptians? (Apr '12) 16 min dcool 3,576
Is There a subtle genocide going on in the Us ??? 20 min dcool 113
News An array of African-American artifacts awaits o... 22 min Mike 5
49er QB Colin Kaepernick is WAKING UP 23 min undercoverboss2016 287
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 24 min Mike 48,861
Why did they Nuked Japan but not Germany??? 32 min dcool 276
News Trump calls on GOP to improve African-American ... 54 min WasteWater 1,378
MSNBC: Trump won 1 hr White and Forever 82
IR at the walmart 2 hr Mick 75
More from around the web