It took me a year to finally accept this conclusion. I had an argument with a YouTuber concerning this issue in reference to a video he posted entitled “Just because you got black in you.” He proceeded to say that racially mixed people (i.e. people with parents from two distinctly different racial groups with one being Black/Afrikan) are not Afrikan and I predictably had an emotional argument referencing the systematic rape that occurred to Afrikans perpetrated by whites (Europeans) in the USA which resulted in the wider spectrum of skin colour seen in the Afrikan population in the US today. However, after failing to convince him and unsubscribing from his channel, I had several months to listen to interviews and read a lot of material, historical, biological, sociological, and political. I eventually reached the conclusion that indeed he is correct. Hybridized people are not Afrikan and should not be accepted as such.
Before you throw around the term “racist”, let me define the term as per my understanding, The terms “racism” and “racist” are actually misnomers. The phenomena should more accurately be termed “ethnocentric economic protectionism for the purposes of seeking, securing and wielding wealth and power”. Understandably, with this more accurate term, it is more convenient for the “racists” to use the former terminology because it deftly conceals the true nature of the phenomenon and makes confused, naive, and unsuspecting people believe that “anyone can be racist” because they treat someone of another race or more appropriately termed “geno-cultural group” (Baruti, 2006), rudely or make disparaging comments about them. Moreover, the more academically accepted terms “white supremacists” and “white supremacy” are actually not correct terms either, although from a eurocentric point of view these terms do surreptitiously stimulate the “utamaroho” (Ani, 1994), of Europeans and people classified as white, these terms are nevertheless used to describe the phenomenon in critical race theory and other fields of study. The appropriate terms are actually either “white world domination by terror” (Kambon, 2006) or “white hegemony”. This is an ideology that holds that whites are better, smarter, and more capable producers and managers of wealth than non-white people, and specifically those categorised as black. Hence it justifies by any means necessary the total destruction of any successful model of development independent of whites or without white people leading, organising and directing it. The logic of this racial hierarchical model proceeds downward with each racial group being more adept at this activity than the lower caste. This ideology informs the system of “white supremacy” that is presently masquerading as globalism. Therefore, it is impossible for a non-white victim (and especially Afrikans) of this system to be a racist, practice racism, be a white supremacist, white hegemonist, or participate in white ethnocentric economic protectionism or “white world domination by terror” in any way that ultimately benefits his or her existence within his or her geno-cultural group and the group as a whole entity as such.
So back to why mulattoes are not Afrikan. Firstly, I would like to posit the view that mulattoes are genome terminator entities, meaning that they can’t reproduce themselves like their respective parents can if they had have mated with one of their own geno-cultural group. A mulatto must mate with another mulatto to reproduce themselves or else their offspring reverts back towards whichever geno-cultural group they have chosen to mate with or they create another hybridised offspring should they decide to mate with another hybridised person or someone from a geno-cultural group which is not one of their parents. Hence their genome pattern cannot maintain structural integrity and they terminate. This is actually the strongest argument for why mulattoes are not Afrikan. Every other geno-cultural group on the planet knows this including the hybridised groups such as the Arabs. The Hispanic/Latinos are another matter which I will address later. I won’t discuss the Indians of South Asia (see the talk by Dr. Velu Annamalai – “Dali: The Black Untouchables of India” on YouTube) but one could reasonably compare my discussion below of the Hispanic/Latinos with that of the Indians, although it is not entirely the same. Other geno-cultural groups never accept a hybrid as one of them. This DOES NOT mean that they treat the hybrid unkindly or should do so in all cases, nor does it mean that the hybrid cannot participate in economic or educational opportunities. However, at the level of strategic power in which the lives and destiny of the geno-cultural group are at stake, hybrids have no place, no relevant voice in matters such as these as they are not part of the geno-cultural group’s GENETIC survival. This is an error that Afrikan people have made. They have assumed that because of “racist” practices of other geno-cultural groups to cast off their hybrids among us, even when they have been created but not fully accepted among the ranks of others, and furthermore the other groups made rules about why they have done so, (i.e. the one drop rule), we have felt an obligation to accept them which has resulted in a non-exclusive preachment befalling the Afrikan geno-cultural group. This failure to address who is Afrikan and who is not has left us vulnerable to infiltration, not only by hybrids, but by non-Afrikans under the false claim that they are too Afrikan because they were either born on the Afrikan continent, they have some distant ancestor who participated in or was raped into producing a hybrid, or they cling to an as yet unproven theory of the “out of Afrika hypothesis” of human origin founded with the propagation of Darwin’s THEORY of evolution. This has left Afrikan people without a codified set of standards, rules and regulations about who is an Afrikan and has exposed us to confused mulattoes seeking a constituency and other unscrupulous interlopers seeking to dominate us.
It was part of racist practices of our enemies to create a one-drop rule. White men did it so they wouldn’t have to legally and formally acknowledge the offspring they had as a result of raping Afrikan women and mulattoes. In fact, I would submit that non-Afrikans who pursue sexual relations with Afrikan people are practicing ethnocentric economic protectionism by way of furthering the social hegemonic aspect of this system, albeit it in a vulgar, perverted, and insidiously biologically destructive way. These people know full well that at present Afrikan people are the least respected geno-cultural group on the planet, so they are seeking to fulfill a need to feel superior to someone through a sexual encounter (which is one of the most vulnerable situations, psychologically and spiritually, a victim of this assault can engage in) which is done most likely due to a sense of inferiority in the non-Afrikan’s own geno-cultural group, or the perpetrators are inherently lustful and perverted and seek to satisfy carnal sexual fetishes at the expense of the non-geno-cultural other, in this case the Afrikan.
The Afrikan geno-cultural group is under no obligation through this behaviour to “accept” mulatto offspring as part of our geno-cultural group anymore than other geno-cultures. It is due to our relative powerlessness and refusal to strictly define who is an Afrikan that has lead to this confusion. Afrikans as part of our liberation and industrial renaissance of Afrikan civilisation, must codify and institutionalise a valid definition of who is an Afrikan. I would suggest reading Chinweizu’s discussion of the “mirror test” for some insight into this matter (Chinweizu, 2006).
Now concerning the so-called Hispanics or Latinos. The term Hispanic simply means a person who speaks Spanish. It is not a racial classification. Therefore, since Spain is in Europe, Hispanics are primarily European white people. The victims of the conquistadors, who were forced to speak the language are largely the remnants of the indigenous nations which were extant in the Americas prior to invasion from Europe. There has been massive hybridisation due to the forced rape practiced by the Europeans and the voluntary rape that results from having been conquered wherein both women and men seek to relate in an intimate way with the geno-cultural group that represents power and control in the imposed society. Latino is a Spanish word that means Latin. Latin is another now defunct language that was spoken in Europe. So the two terms to refer to this group are European languages in origin which have nothing to do with the heritage culture of the preponderance of people in the Americas that these terms indicate. Latin or Latino is used because that was the language of the political theological institution (the Catholic Church) used to repress the minds and cultural rituals of the victims of the colonial enterprise in order to make a more docile population able to be exploited efficiently. Detractors or rebels of the theological doctrine were tortured or killed, so this created a fervent adherence to the religion closely intertwined with one’s own survival which we still see presently. Today in this population, since those people who speak Spanish in the Americas are from various origins (i.e. Afrika, Europe, and indigenous American nations), it cannot be said that these people are a distinct race. In fact the archetypical “Latino” or “Hispanic” is actually a hybridised person who is conditioned in a false consciousness to identify with the colonial culture that was cultivated by European settler-conquerors. Within this group there are still enclaves that have retained their indigenous language and cultural practices, but for racist reasons they are labeled as “Latino/Hispanic” to again stimulate the utamaroho of the European descendants and immigrants that are interspersed in this population, so that they feel a sense of comfort knowing that the language still reflects their own worldview and identity. The majority of the hybrids in this population are victims, and some have reproduced to the degree that they can be considered a distinct geno-cultural group or race, but they have not as yet organised themselves in such a manner mainly because they are still prisoners of the European colonial social construct. Additionally, given the imperial reliance on their economic activity as a source for raw materials, cheap labor, and consumption markets, they are victimised economically and therefore cannot undertake the necessary steps to develop themselves in this way. Moreover, they still have confused Afrikans (who are descendents of enslaved Afrikans and are still repressed by both the hybrids, and Europeans) suffering from a false consciousness within their midst, as well as Europeans that are desperately trying to maintain their colonial relationship and keep enact their white hegemonist system of exploitation. Therefore, the people known as “Hispanic/Latinos” contain people on the spectrum of hybridised individuals, culturally mis-oriented Afrikans, indigenous nationals, and criminal Europeans attempting to persist in the maintenance of the monstrosity they have created.
On the other hand the Arabs have been able to organise themselves into a geno-cultural group. This was largely done 1400 years ago through the development of their own political theological institution known as Islam which is simply Arab Christianity (Popp, 2010). Even though there are hybrids contained in the Arab population, they are either historical hybrids produced in antiquity when these white groups invaded Kemet (Egypt) and created offspring with Afrikan women, or they are offspring of the degenerate Arabs that have kidnapped Afrikan women in the present era and used them for their perverted pleasure as sex slaves. The hybrids they create are used to oppress Afrikans in Afrika and promote the expansion of Arab nationalism (i.e. Islam), even though these hybrids are repressed and discriminated as not really being Arabs themselves. It is a psychological phenomenon that is a result of both hybridisation and power relationships being enforced by the Arabs on their Black Afrikan victims which compels the hybrids’ fealty to the white Arab dominators. The hybrids see the true Afrikans as powerless so even though they are mistreated by their fathers’ geno-cultural group, they feel the power that is available and the superior social and economic position they have as Arab identified hybrids, gives them the motivation to mistreat the Afrikans in a brutal way for their fathers’ people. So since these two groups, the Arabs and Hispanic/Latinos, are organised for white power and whites have used sexual predatory practices to attack their victims and consolidate their control, it does not mean that the hybrids are white, nor does it mean that their non-white status is a basis of solidarity with Afrikans. This is a MAJOR historical point that Afrikans have missed, refuse to accept, or have been deliberately mis-educated from knowing. The multiplicity of these factors has brought about the MASSIVE confusion about this matter. The subject is so sensitive that to even broach the topic with many Afrikans will result in emotional outbursts and vicious name-calling instead of calm deliberation and effective implementation of the proper provisions that would protect Afrikans from being used as the world’s sexual toilet and dumping ground.
Lastly, and this is a radical position, I don’t think that Afrikans and Europeans, or for that matter other geno-cultural groups, are the same “species”. Now before you levy a charge of “Eugenics”, I am arguing that the criteria and hence the definition of “THE human species” is incorrect and specifically culturally derived from European culturally structured thought (Ani, 1994) to serve political purposes and a quest for power. One of the main criterion for Europeans arguing that now (after several previous theories about the sub-human status of Afrikans and other races) humans are one species and there is “no such thing as race” is that different geno-cultural groups or these “non-existent races” can breed with one another, hence if two biological entities can procreate together it supports the likelihood that they are part of the same species, whereas if two biological entities cannot breed, for example a cat and a bird, then they are two different species. This notion is absolutely absurd. I think far too much emphasis has been placed on the breeding criterion and fact that whites and blacks for instance can have hybrid children and therefore, there is no difference other than skin colour between us and subsequently, we should then “not see colour” and accept all as human. This directive notwithstanding, in the Afrikan worldview and traditional Afrikan societies, Afrikans never posited the idea that people were “born human”. Human beings had to be developed through education and socialisation, and upon successful completion of this process, then the status of human was imparted upon an individual within the Afrikan socio-cultural context. (Baruti, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2009) It was not simply bestowed because one was born of a homo sapiens sapiens male and female. This is a distinct difference that exposes the cultural nature of Europeans’ scientific classification and purposes. Basically, I am arguing that Afrikans, Europeans, Asians, “Amerindians”, and other hybridised people constitute different species of the human “family”. The word “family” in this sense is of a biological or taxonomical grouping, not the emotionally laden image of mom and hugs from your grandmother that the colloquial use of the term “family” generates. I am not arguing for some “shiny happy people” view of humans on earth or that we should all start holding hands and be blind to the different interests of these geno-cultural groups and their different destinies. It is quite obvious that the Amerindian nations of North America had a decidedly different destiny than say the “Sinic” East Asians, so I purport that this fact is still present today, although hidden under universalist and globalist rhetoric. The main point is that if two species or types of humans from two separate and distinct geno-cultural groups procreate, it stands to logic that the offspring is neither one nor the other geno-cultural group, and thereby constitutes a new geno-cultural entity that must proceed to either develop a cohesive group with other hybrids, or must “disappear” back into one or the other parent’s geno-cultural group. Azania and its “coloured” population is a stark example of this phenomenon, as are the Arabs and Hispanic/Latinos, although to a lesser degree, that I mentioned before. Nevertheless, I will not take time now to argue whether or not the Afrikan parentage of humanity is valid, but suffice it to say that the present definitive difference in geno-cultures will remain until one or more are exterminated by another (which I am not advocating, but is nonetheless a possibility). So, under these conditions, for Afrikans to help promote and accelerate this process by claiming that all hybrids with one Afrikan parent are Afrikan and are not either a separate geno-cultural group, or are not Afrikan and are part of the other parent’s geno-cultural group, (because hopefully at some point we will have the consciousness and power of definition to codify and implement this idea into reality) is a recipe for extinction and assisted genocide.
References:
Ani, Marimba. (1994) Yurugu: An Afrikan-centered critique of European cultural thought and behavior. Washington D.C.: Nkonimfo Publications.
Annamalai, V. (c. 1994) Dalit: The Black unstouchables of India. New Jersey: Afrikan Echoes. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/Afrikanliberation.
Baruti, Mwalimu K. B. (2002). The sex imperative. Atlanta:Akoben House.
Baruti, Mwalimu K. B. (2003). Homosexuality and the effeminization of Afrikan males. Atlanta:Akoben House.
Baruti, Mwalimu K. B. (2006). Eureason. Atlanta:Akoben House.
Baruti, Mwalimu K. B. (2009). Yurugu’s eunuchs. Atlanta:Akoben House.
Chinweizi, I. (2006) Self-reparation for Afrikan power: Pan Africanism and Black consciousness. Accra: Paper Presented at The Global Pan Afrikan Conference on Reparations and Repatriation Conference. Retrieved from www.abibitumikasa.com.
Kambon, Kamau. (2006). The declaration of Dr. Kamau Kambon. Raleigh: Blacknificient Books.
Kambon, Kobi. (2003). Cultural misorientation. Tallahassee: Nubian Nation
Popp, V. (2010) The early history of Islam, following inscriptional and numismatic testimony. In K.H. Ohlig, & G.R. Puin ( Eds.), The hidden origins of Islam. (pp. 17-124) Amherst: Prometheus Books
The Lumumba Afrika Report 
This was a very insightful article. Your use of words from African languages to define reality highlights shows that you are seeking to be African Centered.
Nonetheless, I would like to know what do you consider the traits of an African?
Would you agree that an African is a person who is clearly a “close” descendant of people from Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania. Their color variation ranging from bronze, dark reddish-brown; dark or nut brown; dark-chocolate color plus peppercorn hair, that is, African textured hair?
I been speaking routinely about the need for a well defined definition of who is African, and I have identified it as the cornerstone problem that Africans must solve (define) so as to gain liberation from up under non-African domination.
Nonetheless, I would like to hear you opinion as to what are the physical traits for an African.
Thanks for starting this discussion.
LikeLike
Thanks for your positive comment. I not only agree with your position that Afrikans are close descendants of people from the Great Lakes area in East Afrika, but that a serious and strict definition is sorely and urgently needed. However, I would use the parlance I have written below because I think it needs to eventually be constituted into some type of legal document or framework. So first of all, I would say that an Afrikan person is someone with two Afrikan parents. Thus, an Afrikan is a man, woman, or child (boy or girl) that has intense, rich, and profuse epidermal melanin content which results in a bold and conspicuous dark brown to deep brown colour. Additionally, an Afrikan man, woman, boy, or girl has coarsely textured hair that, in its natural state and without chemical application, is tightly spiraled and is resistant to making a substantial motion from a static position due to a light breeze, sudden neck movements, or other light physical contact. It is not straight, wavy, or curly and the hair or locks don’t fall limply towards the body, but the hair naturally grows up and outward from the head unless the hair is braided or dread-locked.
It is also necessary to say what an Afrikan is not. My definition is biological, not geographical and all of the criteria must be met. So, an Afrikan is not a person who was simply born on the Afrikan continent. However, the biological group to which I am referring is largely concentrated on the Afrikan continent hence the land mass is used to refer to the people as well, not invaders and settlers whose origin is elsewhere. Therefore, since a white person living in Korea will never be Korean, no matter how long he or she is there and regardless of whether or not they give birth to white children in Korea, they are not Korean, and never will be. An Afrikan is not every member of the homo sapiens population on earth. An Afrikan is not someone who has a hybrid parent, nor someone who is hybridised and simply identifies with Afrikans. This is an important detail because I have personally seen many so-called “Afrocentric” or “Pro-Black” people who talk the talk, but they mate with or marry a hybrid or very light-skinned man or woman. So I would say, notwithstanding all the great analysis and good that he did, we need to declare that Malcolm X is not an Afrikan for the fact that his mother was a mulatto. This will serve as a shock and wake-up call to these people who think that they can talk “bad Black talk” and then turn around a run towards the lightest person they can find and have children with them. If Malcolm is seen as a non-Afrikan/non-white asset to the Afrikan project for power, it serves as a notice to everyone that we will not recognise offspring of an Afrikan and a mulatto as an Afrikan, so people should really consider deeply the choice they make in a mate if they want their offspring to stay in the group. Lastly, Afrikan people who constantly refer to someone in their family’s background who was not Afrikan even though the person speaking fits all of the above criteria, (i.e. the “I got Indian in my family” syndrome) is not Afrikan either, simply because they obviously care more about one straggler who according to family lore might have contributed DNA to them to the exclusion of all other Afrikans in their ancestry. This phenomenon is indicative of mentacide.
LikeLike
This is brilliant. This is the type of intellectual discourse that is sorely needed!
LikeLike
I have something to say. Being a daughter of straight up Africans (Ghanaians to be exact) I have what you would consider…. “African hair” … which ranges from tightly kinky coils, to a bit of loose curls all over. Notice, my parents…. being pure breeds.. bore my little sister. Now this little girl (she’s not little, but in my eyes she will be little) managed to have mixed people’s hair, Curly waves and everything. Ask me how that’s possible, I don’t know but she’s definetely not chemically altering her hair, . Don’t worry, she has the same face as my father, so there is no denying that she is my father’s daughter…. upon investigation, I realized my mom’s texture is actually similar, other than the fact that her hair texture is of course mush more tighter than my sister, but looser compared to mine, and then I realized, alot of africans had this kind of texture too. but….. do you consider my sister to be “Afrikan”
LikeLike
This DOES NOT mean that they treat the hybrid unkindly or should do so in all cases, nor does it mean that the hybrid cannot participate in economic or educational opportunities.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120311417
Lou Jing a Chinese-African American mixed rejected and treated badly in china.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/steelers-hines-ward-making-difference-korea-bi-racial-youth-article-1.392540
Korea NFL Hines War bad treated of hlaf caste in Korea.
LikeLike
Thanks for the articles and your comments. The articles are perfect examples of what I am arguing in the blog post. When I said “this does not mean that they treat the hybrid unkindly or should do so in all cases…”, I was really referring to European/Asian hybrids. They are still seen as not purely Korean, Chinese, kwk, but are definitely not treated as badly as Afrikan/Asian hybrids. Furthermore, I maintain that even with all of the media hype about these isolated cases, these nations have an understanding that hybrids will not serve in the reigns of power of these nations, no matter how well they can sing or run. Ward’s mother’s comments were especially revealing.
LikeLike
Are Ethiopians, Eritreans, Somalis, Nubians (like myself) Afrikans? I am confuse by this. I am Nubian from Aswan, with feature one would classed as stereotypically Afrikan. So where does this leaves people like me?
LikeLike
I meant to say ” Features one wouldnt classified stereotypically Afrikan”
LikeLike
Thanks for your questions. My apologies for the late reply, but I’ve been busier than usual lately. If I understand your question correctly, you are asking if being Ethiopian, Eritrean, Somalian or like yourself Nubian, qualifies you as an Afrikan although your features aren’t classed as stereotypically Afrikan. Well, firstly, this post is not meant to demean hybrids with an Afrikan parent or close Afrikan parentage. It is simply to have a calm, emotionless discussion about this issue. Therefore, I rely strictly on facts and a logical argument, not emotion. With that said, my answer would be a categorical “no”. The main reason is, as I stated in the blog post, you must meet all of the criteria to be considered an Afrikan. If you don’t have the appearance as stated in the article, then you are not an Afrikan, even though you or others may live in the northeast corner of the continent. Secondly, as you may know, that area has had a large amount in interbreeding with invaders and enslavers from Western Asia. So a significant amount of people, but not all, have Arab/Western Asian parentage which has resulted in a phenotype that does not manifest in the type of hair, and in some cases, skin color that I mentioned. For example, with all due respect to my Rastafari brothers and sisters, Haile Selassie is not Afrikan. He clearly represents the offspring of invaders in appearance. However, someone like Grace Jones does typify the phenotype of a “Nubian” even though morally there are some questions as to whether she can retain her Afrikan status. Nevertheless, she fits the biological definition. I would say the same about the young Iman too (before the plastic surgery), however, I don’t know what her natural hair is like, since she has rarely if ever been photographed with it. Furthermore, she is in jeopardy of having her status questioned on moral grounds as well since she is in a tragic arrangement with (married to) a European. But I digress. Again, I am not talking about a geographical definition (or a moral one for that matter at present). It is for those who possess the appearance of the “Congoid” or the definition as I have stated in another one of my replies to this blog post which you are welcome to read.
Finally, and I think this is an important point. For those non-Afrikan/non-white people with recent Afrikan parentage (no more than two generations) or a hybrid who professes to care about the resurrection of Afrikan civilization in a powerful form whose presence is felt in the world and which can impose its worldview to a substantial degree, if it has been concluded by our power centers and leadership groups that it is necessary to define who an Afrikan is for the purposes of our protection and this leaves you outside of the definition, it would seem to me that you would rather see a powerful and redeemed Afrika, rather than a weak and infiltrated Afrika, just so you could have the emotional satisfaction of claiming you are an authentic Afrikan. This to me is a selfish position and counter-productive to the aim of protecting Afrika and Afrikans. As I said in the blog post, this definition does not mean hybrids are treated poorly or denied resources, it does mean however that power is not extended to hybrids in the strategic areas of state management simply because the genetic survival of Afrikans is the responsibility of vetted, trained, and educated Afrikans who have taken an oath of allegiance to the Afrikan power project．This is only logical and I feel should be supported by hybrids who identify with Afrikans or who are assets to this goal.
LikeLike
“So back to why mulattoes are not Afrikan. Firstly, I would like to posit the view that mulattoes are genome terminator entities, meaning that they can’t reproduce themselves like their respective parents can if they had have mated with one of their own geno-cultural group. A mulatto must mate with another mulatto to reproduce themselves or else their offspring reverts back towards whichever geno-cultural group they have chosen to mate with or they create another hybridised offspring should they decide to mate with another hybridised person or someone from a geno-cultural group which is not one of their parents. Hence their genome pattern cannot maintain structural integrity and they terminate. This is actually the strongest argument for why mulattoes are not Afrikan. Every other geno-cultural group on the planet knows this including the hybridised groups such as the Arabs. The Hispanic/Latinos are another matter which I will address later. I won’t discuss the Indians of South Asia (see the talk by Dr. Velu Annamalai – “Dali: The Black Untouchables of India” on YouTube) but one could reasonably compare my discussion below of the Hispanic/Latinos with that of the Indians, although it is not entirely the same. Other geno-cultural groups never accept a hybrid as one of them. This DOES NOT mean that they treat the hybrid unkindly or should do so in all cases, nor does it mean that the hybrid cannot participate in economic or educational opportunities. However, at the level of strategic power in which the lives and destiny of the geno-cultural group is at stake, hybrids have no place, no relevant voice in matters such as these as they are not part of the geno-cultural group’s GENETIC survival. This is an error that Afrikan people have made. They have assumed that because of “racist” practices of other geno-cultural groups to cast off their hybrids among us, even when they have been created but not fully accepted among the ranks of others, and furthermore the other groups made rules about why they have done so, (i.e. the one drop rule), we have felt an obligation to accept them which has resulted in a non-exclusive preachment befalling the Afrikan geno-cultural group. This failure to address who is Afrikan and who is not has left us vulnerable to infiltration, not only by hybrids, but by non-Afrikans under the false claim that they are too Afrikan because they were either born on the Afrikan continent, they have some distant ancestor who participated in or was raped into producing a hybrid, or they cling to an as yet unproven theory of the “out of Afrika hypothesis” of human origin founded with the propagation of Darwin’s THEORY of evolution. This has left Afrikan people without a codified set of standards, rules and regulations about who is an Afrikan and has exposed us to confused mulattoes seeking a constituency and other unscrupulous interlopers seeking to dominate us.”
Hmmmm……good post. As mush as I hate to admit it—that’s a very good argument. You have a very interesting perspective. I don’t hear this type of angle very much.
LikeLike
i really loved your article,,that only thing i didnt like was one term you used,, europeans criminals,, i think that was uncalled for,, due to the fact that not all of them are or were,,,besides that,,thanks for sharing,, you will be a mayor point in all my disscusions on this matter,,i also would like to metion NUBIAN TIMES,, he rocks,,
LikeLike
Thank you for your comments. I am glad you think the article has value. To respond to your one point of criticism, I want to point out that I did not say all Europeans are criminals. I was referring to the Europeans who perpetrated the criminality such as enslavement, colonialism, and genocide. I reject the notion of “the good white person” because whether or not each individual white person enslaved Afrikans is not the point, whites willingly and knowingly emigrated to the countries with full knowledge that enslavement and genocide were occurring in order to reap the benefits that “the bad white people” were setting aside specifically for whites. You can hear more about this concept of “good white people” here. Additionally, we can see this playing out today when I hear people criticising Afrikan people for not protesting the war in Gaza right now, even though Afrikan people have no power to stop the white people from bombing the Arabs in Gaza. However white people do have the power to stop it because white people are the people employed in the weapons manufacturing plants in the USA who are making the weapons to sell to the whites in western Asia. The Japanese are also at fault because Sony makes the cameras and guidance systems that are being used to bomb the Arabs in Gaza and no one is calling for a boycott of Sony PSPs or calling out the Japanese for being complicit in war crimes. However, people are pointing a finger to the most powerless group of people on the planet, Afrikans, for not “saying something” and getting out to march for the Arabs. It’s clear-cut anti-black racism.
As far as not all Europeans being criminals, that may be so, but the amount of good white people is so small that they are inconsequential and unable to stop the much larger group of white people from committing their acts of criminality, so I don’t focus on the “good ones” or pay any attention to them because they have demonstrated an inability to help non-whites or Afrikan people in any substantial way that results in power for Afrikans.
LikeLike
I’m sorry but this makes little sense. You can’t take a persons phenotype and determine their genotype from it. If your definition of “black” is appearance, then what do you say when two brothers with the same parents have different skin tones? It’s pretty easy to compare Bi-Racial’s to full blacks but in America we have everything in between. People with two “black” parents can be anywhere from 70% to 100% black genetically. These genes are also expressed differently giving us all a different appearance. My full blooded sister is like 3 shades lighter than me, so am I black and she’s not? Is this just the one drop rule reversed? If that is the case, then not only is Malcolm X not black, almost no black American is. Even Whoppi Goldberg is only 92% black, does she count? What about Snoop? He’s only 71% black. Are the Saan Bushmen in Africa black? They have some of the oldest genes on earth. If you are going to do a “who is truly black” you have to do it by genotype. If you try to do that, then you have to state a percentage cutoff. The question is what is it for you? 100% or nothing? 95%? 90%? 85%?
By your current explanation I’m black and my full blooded sister isn’t. It makes no sense. You need to rethink this.
LikeLike
Can you explain this comment…. “Its easy to compare Biracial to Blacks”… Why? Why isn’t it easy to compare Biracial to Whites? The one drop rule in reverse? The one drop rule claims that Black blood stains White blood… What he is saying is you are mixed you are mixed or a hybird not White… No actually, what he is saying is correct….. and what the one drop rule is saying is WRONG and Racist…..almost no Black American is? << weak attempt to play on emotions…. lol @ trying go claim Whoopi Goldberg as mixed… then pulling the classic Mulatto card with the san Bushmen… I would have nothing to do with you in real life… You are a clearly a very racist person…… Your comment " One Drop Rule in Reverse" says it all really.
LikeLike
I’m not racist at all, where are you getting that from? I said “it’s easy to compare bi-racials to blacks” because that is what he is using to say who is black and who is not. Like I said, in America there are bi-racial’s (Ie one black parent one white parent) but there are also everything in between. We got people like Whoppi Goldberg who is 92% black. People like Snoop who is 71% black. My question is where is the cut off line? You can’t judge by features (phenotype) because genes express them in different ways. My sister and I for example are FULL BLOODED SIBLINGS yet I’m dark and she’s light. Both of us have the same parents. Neither of us are “bi-racial.”
LikeLike
My agenda is to stop the classifcation of mulattoes and mix breed as Black African and to discourage Africans from having offspring with non African people… I hope that is clear enough for you. I have no idea what you light skinned sister nor Whoopi Goldberg nor Snoop Dogg has to do with this. I want Africans to fear not having an African child so to make proper decisions in mate selections. I have an agenda. If your light skinned sister is not in my plans of a new Africa if that offends you, I can accept that.
LikeLike
Because your sister is biracial, he should change his view? Because your sister is mixed, you want her to be classified as Black.. Why? I don’t understand this mentally.
LikeLike
Look at the man in the above picture. Does he in any way represent an African man? My answer is no. His phenotype has no resemblance to Africans either presently or in antiquity. Yet you say “phenotype can’t determine genotype” In my view your statement is incorrect. Phenotype is a manifestation of the complement of genes that are present in a sufficient enough amount to be expressed through phenotype. Therefore, one may possess a small amount of dominant genes, but they are not in a sufficient number to overcome the amount of recessive genes which are indeed expressed. During sexual procreation, it is severely UNLIKELY that the miniscule amount of dominant genes will be passed on to offspring, so therefore the subsequent offspring will have a larger complement of recessive genes, especially if the sexual partner is genetic recessive as well. My point is that genotype is the range of genes that are contained in a person’s individual DNA, but not ALL genes are expressed. The largest amount of genes that ARE expressed as phenotype indicates the degree to which one has recessive traits or dominant traits and the relative amount of each. We can’t say because someone who looks like the person in the photo is African (Black) because of one or two unexpressed dominant genes which were obviously outnumbered by the amount of recessive genes (traits) which led to him having the phenotypical appearance of an inbred-mutant albino (IMA/white person). We, Africans, cling to this “one drop rule” out of our fear of taking back control of our reproductive habits as African people and in our attempt to try to fit into our group, IMAs, hybrids, and mulattoes among us so we can claim some meaningless moral superiority in not being perceived as “racists”. However, NO OTHER GROUP ON THE PLANET RECOGNIZES RACIALLY MIXED PEOPLE, HYBRIDS, OR MULATTOES AS PART OF THEIR GROUP. They don’t have endless arguments on the Internet about it. Even the people from these other groups who are racially mixed recognize that they are such and move on without trying to make people with both parents from the same group accept him or her as one of them. This person in the picture is said to have been “passing for white”. So mentacidal Africans, (and we all struggle with this psychological disorder to some degree because of the environment in which we live and our conditioning) are trying to force an obvious white man to stop “passing for white” and instead “pass for Black”. It’s absurd. I don’t care about some distant relative he may have had who was a victim of forced rape or voluntary rape who might have been African. He, himself is not African, he doesn’t represent what Africans look like, and he is not the kind of African that we should want to claim or produce through the legitimate sexual congress of one African man and one African woman.
Concerning your discussion about percentages and skin tone differences in siblings with two African (Black) parents, this is why we have to take control of our mating habits and stop using IMA’s (whites’) standards for marriage and procreation which is largely based on the fantasy of “love”. This is why we have an increase in the amount of hybrids being produced because negroes are making decisions on the basis of the juvenile notion of “I can’t help who I fall in love with!” It’s asinine. So in contemporary times this is the main reason we have this phenomenon of people like you with a sister who is hybridized even though your parents are both Black. Most situations like yours have a grandparent or two who was a hybrid and since the white people wouldn’t let them identify as white, they mated with a color-struck negro who was under the false impression that the hybrid was African (Black) too. This is the main problem as I see it. We base everything on European sociocultural standards and not on African cultural standards. This is true of the African people globally. I don’t have a problem with reclaiming someone through inter-generational breeding habits who wants their distant progeny to be African, but the light-skinned grandchild must continue the process of breeding out the IMA DNA. However, what usually happens is that they either mate with a mulatto or a light-skinned non-white person who hasn’t completed this process and the problem about who is African persists and it confuses people like you who just want to operate on emotions and not operate on rational thought and African cultural interests and practices. My blog post is to give people an alternative view of this issue and expose the dangers in claiming that hybrids and mulattoes are African. Bobby E. Wright said “We should consciously try to darken the race.” and I totally agree with him, but we can’t do it if we don’t start to set standards, and definitions of who is an African person and who is not. I don’t care about percentages as much as I do about creating standards, definitions, and protocols, so we can reject the culture of IMAs and create African people.
LikeLike
So if I don’t have kids I’m not Afrikan anymore? What about people who can’t have children? There are other ways to contributing to the advancement of “Afrikan” people than just mating and having kids so let’s talk about that to have more encompassing and holistic results that a greater variety of people can bring about.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your questions. I think you have missed the point of the article. I never stated or implied in the article that people must have children to be Afrikan, nor is the article about barren or sterile people. The subject of the article is clearly stated. The article is not about the other issues that you have tried to interject into this topic.
LikeLike
Also Africa is home to the remains of the oldest humans and humanoids ever found on the planet. The South African Khoisan people have yellow to tan/brown, kinky hair, large lips and so-called “East Asian” eye/eyelid features. Yet they are not “mixed” at all. They are indigenous to Africa. The ancient Egyptians could be found in various colorations were also indigenous to Africa.
You can find the root of every phenotype in the world in *indigenous* Africa. I can agree that Western colorism is a sad fact but you are not serving “our” people at all by using pseudo-scientific theories to deny African diversity.
LikeLike
The Khoisan don’t have yellow skin. The real Khoisan are not hybrids or mulattoes. Some Khoisan have produced hybrids in the contemporary era with non-Afrikan people and they are incorrectly referred to as Khoisan and not as what they really are, which is mulattoes. Why is it that people like you who disagree with the point of view that I stated in the article immediately and predictably go to the Khoisan? If, as you stated, “Africa is home to the remains of the oldest humans and humanoids (sic) found on the planet”, then how can the Khoisan have “East Asian” eye/eyelid features? Wouldn’t logic dictate that it is the other way around, that East Asians have Khoisan eye/eyelid features? Too many people are so reactionary in their cultural orientation that they still automatically use the standards of non-Afrikan people to describe Afrikans as supposedly the oldest, indigenous people on the planet. It’s a confused method of describing the Afrikan worldview. Simply stated, the Khoisan are Afrikan. This article is not about the Khoisan as a separate group from Afrikan people. However, there is a very good argument about the seeming divergence of the Khoisan and the so-called “Congoid” Afrikans in the book “The Iceman Inheritance” by Michael Bradley. One could also surmise from that book what type of biological attack we Afrikan people are currently facing through misguided and unregulated sexual activity, especially with non-Afrikan people.
Furthermore, the ancient Egyptians are in various colorations because of hybridization. Whites came into Egypt as nomads, thieves and beggars as early as the 3rd millennium B.C.E. and it is due to misguided Afrikans allowing them to be involved in government and intermarrying with some of the nobility during the weak kings era that led to an increased mulatto population and ultimately the downfall of Black Egypt. It is doubtless that since temples were constantly being razed, rebuilt and redecorated by the conquering Afro-Asian (mulatto) hoards and their white parents, that they would obviously paint their own images on the walls of the temples and pyramids to replace the images of those whom they overthrew. They are still doing it now. Just because there are some variations in the color of people depicted in these monuments does not mean that they were unmixed, it does not mean that they were viewed as Afrikans by the original Egyptians, nor that they were not the enemies of the Afrikans. These mulattoes were the offspring of white invaders and the traitorous and confused Afrikans much like what we have today with athletes and movie stars caught in this same treachery.
Being able to “find the root” of every phenotype in Afrika does not mean that other non-Afrikan phenotypes are not subspecies of Afrikans. This is evident in the behavior of non-Afrikans to Afrikans even today. They don’t see themselves as us, and they treat us very differently than they treat people in their own subspecies group. Additionally, I don’t recognize the term “colorism” It is a misnomer. There are Afrikans and non-Afrikans and the white hegemonic social order has used their non-white offspring to confuse and dominate Afrikan people in the interests of white power. That is part and parcel of the system of white hegemony, not “colorism”. I have not denied Afrikan diversity, for example the Masai are ethnically different than the Akan people. That is diversity. I just don’t adhere to the “one-drop rule” and do not categorize the offspring of white people or the offspring of color-struck negroes as Afrikan.
LikeLike
First of all you’re using an extreme example with Lawrence Dennis. As far as I can tell we don’t even know how “black” he was. There was no DNA test back then. Also, if he did have a significant amount of black DNA then you’re proving MY point that phenotype doesn’t always determine genotype. Because judging by his photo his phenotype says he’s white when in reality his genotype says something totally different.
You didn’t really answer my question concerning percentages or two siblings with the same parents having different skin tones. I mean you stated a solution to the problem but you didn’t answer how you would define them in your current model. But that is the PROBLEM, there is a huge gaping FLAW in your definition of black people that you can’t address. You can’t say “well if you look like this you’re black but if you look like this you’re a hybrid” It doesn’t make sense. Hybrid is a GENETIC term. So give me a percentage? Or at least answer this basic question. If I gave you a list of well known people could you decisively define which ones are black and which ones aren’t using your current model? If so, lets do it. If not then how useful is your model?
LikeLike
Okay. I get it now. From your statement, “Also, if he did have a significant amount of black DNA then you’re proving MY point that phenotype doesn’t always determine genotype.” You actually think that people can have a “significant” amount of Black (Afrikan) DNA and still look white or non-African? Forgive me but that is absurd. Either African DNA is dominant or it is not. You cannot have, by definition, a “significant” amount of something and still be lacking the ability to express that complement of traits, unless one has a genetic mutation or disease. It belies logic and scientific actuality. It is also wishful thinking to claim that you are basing Afrikanity on genotype and considering the phenotype insignificant because it is not determined by the genotype. I think you are just someone who wants to continue accepting non-Afrkans as Afrikans for your own personal reasons and are not concerned with group power.
You want to continue to allow people to define individuals such as Barack Obama, Lena Horne, and Adam Clayton Powell as Afrikan because whites won’t/wouldn’t let them say they are white. Additionally, there is a possibility in your mind that they have a “significant” amount of Afrikan DNA which unfortunately, due to no fault of their own, is unexpressed. Therefore politically we obvious Afrikans have no authority to define the group and exclude from the group. This is a self-defeating position and is one of the reasons we are in this befuddled situation today. I totally reject your position on this issue. Your logic is confusing and confused. You are deliberately trying to confound what is a clearly stated position in the article by interjecting outlying cases and avoiding a discussion of the general trend which I am discussing.
The man in the photo is not an extreme example. He is the perfect example of what I am talking about and we have many such documented cases as his in history.
A negro that people think helped Afrikan people by writing our “true” history wrote a book called “5 Negro presidents”. The subtitle of the book (which was added later; after the first printing, and not by the author) is very important and quite illustrative it is, “ACCORDING TO WHAT WHITE PEOPLE SAID THEY WERE” !!!
In the book he tried to use the “one-drop rule” to say that these white men were Afrikan (negro/Black). The author’s name was J.A. Rogers and he was married to a white woman.
After he died, his estate and the proceeds from the sales of his books went to his white wife who subsequently married another white man. (The same thing that happened to Michael Jackson’s estate and will happen to Michael Jordan’s all because of their love, fascination and adoration of white people)
So all the work Rogers allegedly did to help Afrikans ended up helping whites due to his adherence to this misguided “one drop rule”. I highly suspect that Rogers maintained his position on the “one drop rule” because it would compel dumbfounded Afrikans to acknowledge any offspring he had with his white wife. The rule would also be used to define them as Afrikan, to which we ACTUAL Afrikans would then have to concede. People like Rogers who use the “one drop rule” have a dual purpose. We Afrikans are forced to not only accept his children, but his act of marrying a white woman too. (Or in the case of color-struck negroes, marrying a mulatto or hybrid) Negroes use the “one drop rule” to excuse their acts of treason. We Afrikans must jettison the “one drop rule” immediately!
Concerning your question about percentages and two siblings, isn’t stating a solution to the issue enough? Many Afrikan people want to waste time debating the supposed finer points and nuances of an argument which is really a masquerade for their fear of taking action and an attempt by them to soothe a weak ego instead of going forward to implement a strong policy to bring into existence Afrikan power. One aspect of power is the power to define. Whites defined THEIR offspring and the subsequent generations of THEIR systematic rape practices by using the “one drop rule”. I, and other forward thinking Afrikans, are taking the power to define back so that we can expose color-struck negroes and negroes who chase after sexual relations with non-Afrikan people as the liabilities that they are to our goal of total Afrikan sovereignty. We want to expose them as hindrances to our goal of a powerful sub-continental nation-state in Afrika which can act with power in the world and enforce the will of Afrikan people.
If two siblings have the same parents, and both parents are over six feet tall, and one offspring is over six feet tall also, but one offspring is a “midget” (short person), should we define the “midget” as a normal sized person simply because his/her parents and siblings are of average/above average human height? No, of course not. It is the same in this case. You want me to continue to claim that the non-Afrikan imposition of genetic material is Afrikan for your emotional reasons. I won’t do it. If we don’t take control of our sexual mating habits and infuse healthier protocols in mating choices and marriage practices then the confusion will continue, the infiltration will continue, and Afrikans will have no power to admonish the activities of contemporary negroes who are chasing eurocentric exemplars of beauty with which to mate and produce offspring, and all the while using white people’s rules to get other Afrikans to accept their negro behavior. I won’t do it, and no emotional argument about siblings and ridiculous notions of genotype not determining phenotype is going to change my mind on the necessity and practicality of this conclusion.
LikeLike
I’m not trying to be mean, but to me you’re some weird extremist who sounds Iike he’s unwilling and emotionally attached to his theory. I’m just a regular dude who stumbled upon this article, I actually read your article with an open mind but some parts didn’t make sense to me. That is why I asked my questions. I was then called a racist by your fans (shows what type of minds support you lmao) and you never really answered my questions. How can you have a solution to this problem when your definition of who is black doesn’t make any sense? Is Derrick Rose African? Is Snoop? Is Pac? Is Kobe? Is Charles Barkley? What makes someone African? You have to have this kind of hair, this kind of nose, this shade of skin and DNA doesn’t matter? Did you know Barkley has more African DNA than Snoop? Yet looking at phenotype alone you’d never know.
How do you know FOR SURE if someone is your son? You get a DNA test. It’s the same logic. You can’t look at someone to decide how African they are just like you can’t look at a kid and decide whether or not he’s your son. I mean phenotype is an ok indicator but it’s not anywhere near as accurate as DNA.
And that is what this boils down to. I judge how African someone is by their DNA. You judge it by how they look. My DNA method is about 99% accurate while your method can’t even be truly tested (unless you use my method.) It’s honestly like doing an estimate vs doing the math. This is why your article makes no sense to me. Maybe it would make sense before DNA testing was discovered but not now.
I honestly think your agenda is damaging and just creates a divide between black people based on skin tone. I don’t think it will ever take off in America because too many people who consider themselves black wouldn’t be black in your model. Let’s just look at the CRM and take away all the people who weren’t black under your model. Take away MLK. Take away Malcolm X. Take away Rosa Parks. Take away Huey Newton. Take away Ali. Take away Ali. It doesn’t make sense.
My model is simple, it’s not confused at all. If the vast amount of you DNA is African (say 70% or more) and you profess that you’re black, you’re black. It makes sense to me.
.
LikeLike
Actually, MLK would be black according to his model. Also, the issue of DNA Ancestry tests has already been dealt with. See Nubian Times’ videos and about.
LikeLike
Would he? Because MLK doesn’t have Dark skin like the user claims you need in order to be considered black. Also, in regards to DNA, I can’t find the videos you’re talking about. I have read up on the criticisms of genealogical dna testing though. Regardless, it’s a lot more reliable than looking at someone and trying to determine their heritage. Ever watch the show “blackish?” The youngest son (Miles Brown) is literally half Mexican. Yet he’s darker than my sister and has coarser hair than my sister. My sister has two black parents. My dad is around MLK’s skin tone while my mom is a shade darker. I’m darker than both my parents (around Kobe Bryant’s skin tone). You can never tell with genes. I’ve seen mixed couples who have children as pale as the mom with full blooded siblings as dark as the dad. I’ve seen kids with blue eyes, coarse hair and brown skin. The best way to determine someones ancestry is genetically. Not by looking at them. It’s kind of stupid that we are even having this discussion because it’s so painfully obvious that I’m right.
LikeLike
He gives a description of the traits of Black people in the following article.
LikeLike
He already gave a description in this comment section.
“Thus, an Afrikan is a man, woman, or child (boy or girl) that has intense, rich, and profuse epidermal melanin content which results in a bold and conspicuous dark brown to deep brown colour. Additionally, an Afrikan man, woman, boy, or girl has coarsely textured hair that, in its natural state and without chemical application, is tightly spiraled and is resistant to making a substantial motion from a static position due to a light breeze, sudden neck movements, or other light physical contact. It is not straight, wavy, or curly and the hair or locks don’t fall limply towards the body, but the hair naturally grows up and outward from the head unless the hair is braided or dread-locked.”
It’s ridiculous. According to this, I guess I’m not black because I have dips. As for that ink you sent me it’s clear propaganda. I feel bad for everyone on this board. You guys are like the black KKK. This is like the black version of stormfront lmao.
LikeLike
[…] https://lumumbaafrika.wordpress.com/2014/06/01/why-mulattoes-and-other-hybrids-are-not-afrikan/ […]
LikeLike
Perfectly written. Keep it up brother, You,Nubian times and Chinweizu changed my world view. I now view mixed race people claiming to be black differently ( I used to follow african comes in all shades bullshit). I see why the people who don’t agree with you have no concrete evidence to back up their claims.
LikeLike
Spread the message revolutions start out very small!
LikeLike
I’ll try my best. Thanks for the comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We will be victorious, we have no other option.
LikeLike
Thank YOU! It is good to hear that there are people out there who still want to consider new viewpoints instead of staying stuck in the detrimental concepts of the past.
LikeLike
I recommend including Nubian Time’s video on this matter as well. I think a lot of new comers are misunderstanding some of what is being said. I also notice a lot of them are also under the false impression that DNA tests are capable of reliably determining ethnic/racial ancestry. They do not know the science, or lack thereof, behind these so-called tests. This really needs to be addressed as it has created a lot confusion among Afrikans as to the relationship between genes and phenotype.
LikeLike
I Just went back to visit his channel and it appears the video has been removed, but maybe one of you guys can write a response instead to those who try to use DNA tests to counter ACBN ideology.
LikeLike
Yeah, I stopped engaging with that commenter because he did what usually happens in discussions like this. He started mentioning a litany of people about whom I am supposed to have an opinion on whether or not they are Afrikan. He totally overlooked the central point of the argument and started nit-picking irrelevant details. He totally ignored my rebuttal about DNA being the basis of phenotype expression. Then he tried to turn the tables and charge me with being emotionally attached to my thesis. I don’t have time for such foolish games.
LikeLike
The problem with the DNA tests isn’t that they’re not accurate, if they can catch a crook by using DNA, it’s accurate enough. The problem is that there’s basically no way to scientifically (at least not today) determine what the “baseline” is (in terms of a “dna-profile”) . When they compare DNA from a diasporan Afrikan, to a continental Afrikan, the “dna-profile” is just a “mish-mash ” compiled from people who are self-identified (Akan, Baluba, Yoruba etc) , so if they already have some admixture (since many ethnic-groups have “accepted” mixed-breeds as their own) , there’s no way of actually knowing who’s 100% Yoruba, Baluba, Akan etc. That’s why phenotype is so important, because we’ve always know what we’ve looked like (which is the most important factor) , and we also have statements from foreigners who’ve encountered us. Heck, Herodotus visited Egypt around 500BCE and his observations were that they had flat noses, full lips and “woolly hair” (Obviously, I know that there’s quite a lot of different phenotypes amongst us, but a few features seem to be very consistent, and that’s our dark skin, and african textured hair.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The problem with the DNA tests isn’t that they’re not accurate, if they can catch a crook by using DNA, it’s accurate enough.”
Mark Thomas, Professor of Evolutionary Genetics at UCL:
“We all love stories about our past, and for many it’s too tempting to cut corners, draw inferences based on only superficial analysis of the data, and ignore the uncertainty. A PUBLIC UNAWARE OF THE DISTINCTIONS MAY BE MISLED INTO THINKING THAT DNA-BASED INFERENCES ABOUT THE PAST ARE AS RELIABLE AS A DNA PROFILE MATCH OR THE RESULTS OF A GENETIC DISEASE TEST. USUALLY THEY ARE NOT.”
DNA use to match someone’s profile is completely different from so-called DNA ancestry testing. Not only this, but the tests used are completely different and have been shown to produce false negative and positive results.
LikeLike
More problematic is the fact results are arrived at using interpretive phylogeography. It should also be noted that DNA isn’t retained forever. Just because at one point in the distant past a person had a non African ancestor it doesn’t mean they actually have non African DNA (even if their MtDNA, for example, goes back to a non African).
LikeLike
I understand what you’re saying. It makes sense, we must keep Africa for real Africans not light skinned hybrids and mulattoes. The whites reject them, so they get to claim black, reaps the benefits from white masters and help to destroy African/black power. I get it! Mulattoes, hybrids, and light skinned blacks (negros) want to have their cake and eat it to. I use to feel “we all come in different shades,” but not anymore. To me light skinned people think they are better, get a few more crumbs then the rest of us. I’m not hatin’, but the blacker the berry the sweeter the juice…back to blacker.
LikeLike
Good work.
I see many upset people because they fail to be classified as African by your work. You and Nubian Times are on point. I see nowhere where you or Nubian Times have disregarded brown skin Africans, but lots of detractors claiming this. I’ve seen many times when people have said there are many light skin Igbo, false, they are clearly within the paradigm you mention, ‘light skin’ Igbos are still brown, not yellow but people want straws to grasp onto.
@TheThinkingAfrican86, well done too. You are 100% correct, anybody with actual knowledge of breeding, gene pools and DNA would know that DNA can actually fall out of the gene pool and never be represented again, this should be obvious since Europeans, East and Southeast Asians and Middle Easterners are all descendant of Africans but can’t produce one biracial looking child unless the African person is within 10 or less generations (dominant gene throwback). Does that mean they have no African origins, no but they certainly don’t contain African DNA in the sense that it is in their sperm and eggs and have no ability to produce African children. The mainstream media and false education at school don’t point this out and people fail to use (or were never taught) critical thinking. Many fruits bear this fact once again, Europeans have made many hybrid fruits which are now accepted as the original e.g. carrots, bananas, strawberries, grapes all are descendants of the original and were heavily cross-bred between various phenotypes and strains of the fruit and now many are seedless and can’t bear the original fruit, wild bananas are full of seeds, original carrots were purple, original strawberries are usually bitter and mush on contact, grapes are not naturally seedless ect. It doesn’t mean they aren’t actually those fruits but the distant genes can be bred out of fruit and out of a person, white scientist know this, but will not tell people the truth.
LikeLike
Thank you for this.
LikeLike
Thank you for taking the time to read it.
LikeLike
Do you want Me to create an ACBN group on Facebook to recruit more followers?
LikeLike
Hi! Thanks for the offer, but I am not sure what practical value that would have. I have known other people to post similar facebook pages only to have them deleted. But, if you want to do it, your are welcome to do so. I see ACBN at this stage as a mode of thought. Adherents to ACBN should try to seek power and enact policies in accordance with their convictions.
LikeLike
Okay.
LikeLike
So would ACBN allow ANY Mulattos into it? Even the ones who claim to be super-duper pro-Black? Do you think they should play some role in Black Liberation?
LikeLike
Non-whites help whites build, strengthen, and maintain their system, so there is no reason we should not use a similar tactic. I just don’t think that they (mulattoes/hybrids) should be the de facto leaders of actual Afrikans (which has historically and is currently the case to a large degree). Furthermore, even if they are “Pro-Black” that doesn’t mean they are actually Afrikans. Whites may recruit mulattoes into their system, but they don’t say that they are white. (e.g. Barack Obama)
LikeLike
So you wouldn’t allow Mulattos into ACBN then?
LikeLike
No.
LikeLike
[…] means that one or another group or groups must face functional extinction. Please see my article “Why Mulattoes and other Hybrids are not Afrikan” […]
LikeLike
[…] Why Mulattoes and other Hybrids are not Afrikan […]
LikeLike
[…] call it ethno-nationalism, I prefer the term white hegemony which I defined in my blog post “Why Mulattoes and other Hybrids are not Afrikan“. It is also in my book, ACBN: A Primer. Onitaset has written a couple of books which I also […]
LikeLike
[…] call it ethno-nationalism, I prefer the term white hegemony which I defined in my blog post “Why Mulattoes and other Hybrids are not Afrikan“. It is also in my book, ACBN: A Primer. Onitaset has written a couple of books which I also […]
LikeLiked by 1 person