.

One large reason why our people may not be the former slaves

SoreShoulderSoreShoulder Member Posts: 2,605 ✭✭✭
edited August 23 in Politics
In the Ken Burns' film "The Civil War,"  historian Ed Bearss stated that the South's militia system "had been a joke" before John Brown's raid on Harper's ferry.  

That means the actual slaves may not be the ancestors of today's African-Americans because they must have been docile and easy to keep in line.   The blacks here now may have come in post-war somehow, either from Africa or perhaps they were freed British slaves who were all forced to emigrate to Jamaica or the Bahamas in 1807, where it must have been overcrowded because the islands were already staffed and populated.

People laugh and say "oh, there's a way to make a smart person docile" but if you damage someone, they will not be able to focus as well on repetitive tasks all day and may become violent and impulsive and have to be put down.  They may may they heal if they're living calorie restricted and exercising hard every day.  Last, the brain uses a lot of energy and people with a large brain would require more food which is an expense. 

Another thing is, if you're using gangstas as a measuring rod, recall the planters weren't oppressed people who became thugs because no one would employ them.  There weren't a lot of them sitting around with not a lot to do.  They were the wealthiest people around, so people wouldn't help them out of love.  Security services would probably only be provided to them for a lot of money by other people from the South, who probably didn't like them all that much. 

Comments

  • SoreShoulderSoreShoulder Member Posts: 2,605 ✭✭✭
    edited August 22
    The slaves who were here during slavery, who have probably died out or were sold abroad during the Civil War, may have been bred in order to have an obedient work force who were just barely smart enough to do menial jobs, clearly not our people.  The genetic record is said to show signs of forced breeding.

    Then again, the genetic record could reflect postwar child bearing. Perhaps, after the war, former slave women or families went and found the smartest or wealthiest African they could find to have their children with because old age and poverty loomed and they knew they weren't fully capable of independent living, because their intelligence had deliberately been bred down by their masters.  They could have visited Africa or rich Africans could have come here.  They'd have a smarter child and the intelligent man who helped them would then be motivated to coach the child life skills.

    From a CNN.com article on a study conducted by 23andme:

    It shows the legacy of rape against enslaved women

    The enslaved workers who were taken from Africa and brought to the Americas were disproportionately male. Yet, genetic data shows that enslaved women contributed to gene pools at a higher rate.
    In the US and parts of the Caribbean colonized by the British, African women contributed to the gene pool about 1.5 to 2 times more than African men. In Latin America, that rate was even higher. Enslaved women contributed to the gene pool in Central America, the Latin Caribbean and parts of South America about 13 to 17 times more.
    Here are seven things you probably didn39t know were connected to slavery
    To the extent that people of African descent in the Americas had European ancestry, they were more likely to have White fathers in their lineage than White mothers in all regions except the Latin Caribbean and Central America.
    What that suggests: The biases in the gene pool toward enslaved African women and European men signals generations of rape and sexual exploitation against enslaved women at the hands of White owners, authors Steven Micheletti and Joanna Mountain wrote in an email to CNN.
    That enslaved Black women were often raped by their masters "is not a surprise" to any Black person living in the US, says Ravi Perry, a political science professor at Howard University. Numerous historical accounts confirm this reality, as the study's authors note.
    But the regional differences between the US and Latin America are what's striking.
    The US and other former British colonies generally forced enslaved people to have children in order to maintain workforces -- which could explain why the children of an enslaved woman were more likely to have an enslaved father. Segregation in the US could also be a factor, the authors theorized.
    By contrast, the researchers point to the presence of racial whitening policies in several Latin American countries, which brought in European immigrants with the aim of diluting the African race. Such policies, as well as higher mortality rates of enslaved men, could explain the disproportionate contributions to the gene pool by enslaved women, the authors wrote.

  • SoreShoulderSoreShoulder Member Posts: 2,605 ✭✭✭
    edited August 22
    Many of our US blacks come from Angola or Senegambia according to genetic data.  Both places were heavily colonized by Europeans.  I would bet that many of our people come from the Belgian Congo as well.  

    Perhaps those individuals' ancestors weren't brought here by slave traders but heard about our Civil War while in Africa.  Perhaps they were moved to extreme jealousy because the people they had sold here were going to be free.  Perhaps they felt more deserving than the people they had sold to the New World because they had defeated and captured them and sold them into the very slavery that was going to be their salvation if the North won the Civil War. 

    Perhaps the colonial authorities let them go because they did not need quite so many people in their countries for what they wanted to do, which was manage the available land for maximum ivory production.   Maybe there was no genocide in the Belgian Congo or Angola, or maybe a little genocide combined with a little emigration. 

    The US Federal government might have secretly cooperated because they needed the South to get back in the swing of producing goods that give the US a trade surplus.  The planters would have cooperated because they might have sold their slaves for cash to buy war goods, then stopped buying war goods when they realized they were going to lose, so they were sitting on a lot of cash while many other Americans had been impoverished by the war. 

    Last, some days I feel I might be a little psychic.  Sometimes it just feels like the ancestors of today's African-Americans were in Africa and envied the actual slaves when the Civil War started, and said "we deserve to live in the wealthy US more than they."  Their ancestors had defeated, captured, and sold the actual former slaves after all.  So they got in here somehow.  If the actual former slaves had been bred for slavery, it's possible those that were left after the Civil War simply weren't very successful in earning money and having kids.  Perhaps, horror of horrors, they could not.  
  • kimikimi Member Posts: 44,609 ✭✭✭
    edited August 18

    The Sourh's militia was a joke? They defeated America's enemies north an south of the Ohio River. They defeated Ferguson at the battle Kings Mountain and caused the British Army to limp to the sea after they lost the Battle of Guildford's Court House, and take to Yorktown to be trapped there for their defeat and American Independence. And their sons' and grandsons' militias were just as organized and effective as well. Ken Burns Civil War production was dominated by the exact same type of race hustling, blood sucking leeches as we have today with the Democratic Communist Party run by the likes of comrades Pelosi and Schumer. That is not to say that there were not some accomplished historians among them.


    As for rapes, there is probably a whole lot more going on in the black communities today alone, percentage wise, than there ever was at any time before the War of Northern Aggression since the entire South was a genuine Bible Belt full of devout Christians. The vast majority of slave owners were outstanding citizens. The communist and misguided b a s t a r d s that write these type articles have an agenda to demonize Anyone that disagrees with them or continue the racist activities.

    What's next?
  • SoreShoulderSoreShoulder Member Posts: 2,605 ✭✭✭
    edited August 22
    kimi said:

    The Sourh's militia was a joke? They defeated America's enemies north an south of the Ohio River. They defeated Ferguson at the battle Kings Mountain and caused the British Army to limp to the sea after they lost the Battle of Guildford's Court House, and take to Yorktown to be trapped there for their defeat and American Independence.

    Those people were mostly dead in the period being referred to.  Bearss was referring to the period just before the Harper's Ferry raid. 

    He also said they whipped themselves into shape as a result of the raid.  
  • kimikimi Member Posts: 44,609 ✭✭✭
    edited August 18
    kimi said:

    The Sourh's militia was a joke? They defeated America's enemies north an south of the Ohio River. They defeated Ferguson at the battle Kings Mountain and caused the British Army to limp to the sea after they lost the Battle of Guildford's Court House, and take to Yorktown to be trapped there for their defeat and American Independence.

    Those people were mostly dead.  Bearss was referring to the period just before the Harper's Ferry raid. 

    He also said they whipped themselves into shape as a result of the raid.  

    Be they Christian or not, they might have bred their slaves especially after the ban in slave trading.  They might have selected the ones who would make the best slaves and kept the other men from having kids. 

    The freed slaves might also have sought out the wealthiest, smartest black person they could find, after the war, because they didn't want to starve in retirement.  And, the men might not have been capable.  I believe that doing so would be genetically indistinguishable from being forcibly bred before the war.  
    I was addressing the bigger picture of the points I objected to so as to set the entire record straight.  The Southern militias were alive, well, and intact.  They basically never trained much to begin with throughout history.  They made their musters, and went off to lay waste and defeat their enemies when the threat warranted it.  Of course, the last year or three before the war they became very serious about secession and trained to protect their homes and their rights.
    What's next?
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 21,830 ✭✭✭✭
    There are many who can trace their ancestry back to an enslaved person.  There are documented descendants of Sally Jennings, for example, but there are 1000's if not millions more.

    There are many blacks in America who have no ancestor who was enslaved on American soil.

    There are no doubt many who do not know.

    I am unsure why it is a big deal, unless one is being forward looking and attempting to find a way to properly send reparations only to those blacks in America today who have legitimate claim because of demonstrated ancestry.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • kimikimi Member Posts: 44,609 ✭✭✭
    edited August 18
    BTW, the picture in your article shows some rather well dressed, meaning well to do, farmers and/or farm laborer's.   Probably farmers who owned their own land, long after the war!  And Woven Baskets to put cotton in?!  Are you kidding me...who in the hell ever picked cotton like that?!  More like a classic staged Photo OP!

    You want to see some poor people...dig up some pictures of the typical white southern families and you'll see which people had the wealth back then.  Or, I could post up some pictures of some real poor people...like my people, for one!  Don't buy off on the racist BS the Democratic Communist Party and their minions have spewed 24/7 in earnest, especially for the past generation or so!
    What's next?
  • SoreShoulderSoreShoulder Member Posts: 2,605 ✭✭✭
    edited August 18
    There are many who can trace their ancestry back to an enslaved person.  There are documented descendants of Sally Jennings, for example, but there are 1000's if not millions more.
    Maybe that's what you're supposed to believe.  

    What if during the great migration, people got their identities stolen and were murdered, then the Africans who stole their identity settled in a new city where no one but their own kind (illegal immigrants) knew them?

    What if they got rich men from Africa to make the ultimate sacrifice and come here and stud for them because the womenfolk didn't want to starve in their old age for not having children to care for them and the men folk didn't want the world to know they had been gelded?  Or maybe just because they knew they needed a bit of help to get by, if they had been bred to be easy to control.   

    What if families fostered black orphans from Africa because they feared for their retirement?

    What if illegals simply bribed people to say they were part of the family?  They didn't have to talk to whites back then.

    If I am right, then the people who were slaves here are mostly long gone, so I'm not saying every black person is incapable of living without close supervision.   But maybe in 1861, it was so, due to careful, selective breeding, then they got changed out due to various processes after the war.

    Did anyone notice the bulk of today's African-Americans come from places that were very oppressive foreign colonies during the post-US-Civil War period, like German Angola?  They are also said to have had genocides, meaning a lot of people vanished. 
  • SoreShoulderSoreShoulder Member Posts: 2,605 ✭✭✭
    edited August 18
    kimi said:
    BTW, the picture in your article shows some rather well dressed, meaning well to do, farmers and/or farm laborer's.   Probably farmers who owned their own land, long after the war!  And Woven Baskets to put cotton in?!  Are you kidding me...who in the hell ever picked cotton like that?!  More like a classic staged Photo OP!
    What did you think a file photo put in an article was supposed to prove?
    That's just like saying Pearl Harbor did not happen because there was a show that mentioned it and it portrayed file footage of Dauntlesses and Avengers bombing. So they use the wrong file photo sometimes, what's your point?
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 21,830 ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 18
    There are many who can trace their ancestry back to an enslaved person.  There are documented descendants of Sally Jennings, for example, but there are 1000's if not millions more.
    Maybe that's what you're supposed to believe.  

    What if during the great migration, people got their identities stolen and were murdered, then the Africans who stole their identity settled in a new city where no one but their own kind (illegal immigrants) knew them?

    What if they got rich men from Africa to make the ultimate sacrifice and come here and stud for them because the womenfolk didn't want to starve in their old age for not having children to care for them and the men folk didn't want the world to know they had been gelded?  Or maybe just because they knew they needed a bit of help to get by, if they had been bred to be easy to control.   

    What if families fostered black orphans from Africa because they feared for their retirement?

    What if illegals simply bribed people to say they were part of the family?  They didn't have to talk to whites back then.

    If I am right, then the people who were slaves here are mostly long gone, so I'm not saying every black person is incapable of living without close supervision.   But maybe in 1861, it was so, due to careful, selective breeding, then they got changed out due to various processes after the war.

    Did anyone notice the bulk of today's African-Americans come from places that were very oppressive foreign colonies during the post-US-Civil War period, like German Angola?  They are also said to have had genocides, meaning a lot of people vanished. 
    Anything is possible, soreshoulder.
    Some things are possible, but not probable.

    Dollars to donuts there remains a large percentage of blacks in America who have ancestors who were slaves on American soil.  So what?  They have been American citizens for 150+ years.  Most have taken advantage of that fact and have progressed to a point of success.  Some have not.  Some demand that a society that no longer exists pay them for damages to people that have not existed for a century.  These people should be countered with the obvious facts of our shared history.

    Fantasy scenarios do nothing.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • SoreShoulderSoreShoulder Member Posts: 2,605 ✭✭✭
    edited August 18
    There are many who can trace their ancestry back to an enslaved person.  There are documented descendants of Sally Jennings, for example, but there are 1000's if not millions more.
    Maybe that's what you're supposed to believe.  

    What if during the great migration, people got their identities stolen and were murdered, then the Africans who stole their identity settled in a new city where no one but their own kind (illegal immigrants) knew them?

    What if they got rich men from Africa to make the ultimate sacrifice and come here and stud for them because the womenfolk didn't want to starve in their old age for not having children to care for them and the men folk didn't want the world to know they had been gelded?  Or maybe just because they knew they needed a bit of help to get by, if they had been bred to be easy to control.   

    What if families fostered black orphans from Africa because they feared for their retirement?

    What if illegals simply bribed people to say they were part of the family?  They didn't have to talk to whites back then.

    If I am right, then the people who were slaves here are mostly long gone, so I'm not saying every black person is incapable of living without close supervision.   But maybe in 1861, it was so, due to careful, selective breeding, then they got changed out due to various processes after the war.

    Did anyone notice the bulk of today's African-Americans come from places that were very oppressive foreign colonies during the post-US-Civil War period, like German Angola?  They are also said to have had genocides, meaning a lot of people vanished. 
    Anything is possible, soreshoulder.
    Some things are possible, but not probable.

    Dollars to donuts there remains a large percentage of blacks in America who have ancestors who were slaves on American soil.  So what?  They have been American citizens for 150+ years.  Most have taken advantage of that fact and have progressed to a point of success.  Some have not.  Some demand that a society that no longer exists pay them for damages to people that have not existed for a century.  These people should be countered with the obvious facts of our shared history.

    Fantasy scenarios do nothing.
    You're talking supposition.  Photographs were expensive in those days.  Records could be falsified and identities stolen.

    Plus, the South really really needed money for weapons.

    There might be hard evidence in the genetic record.  If that doesn't interest you, why not leave it alone?

    If found, it would take a lot of steam out of the debate.

     Whereas few liberals will ever accept that the descendants of slaves are not owed just because it's been 150 years and the society that should pay them no longer exists.
  • kimikimi Member Posts: 44,609 ✭✭✭
    edited August 18
    kimi said:
    BTW, the picture in your article shows some rather well dressed, meaning well to do, farmers and/or farm laborer's.   Probably farmers who owned their own land, long after the war!  And Woven Baskets to put cotton in?!  Are you kidding me...who in the hell ever picked cotton like that?!  More like a classic staged Photo OP!
    What did you think a file photo put in an article was supposed to prove?
    That's just like saying Pearl Harbor did not happen because there was a show that mentioned it and it portrayed file footage of Dauntlesses and Avengers bombing. So they use the wrong file photo sometimes, what's your point?
    You're not stupid...your reading comprehension will allow you to know full well what the few points are that I have made.  But as a refresher, one point had to do with militias during the periods addressed, the second had to do with making the Southern slave owners out to be a bunch of rapists, (ALL TOTAL BS), and the last had to do with the photo as I mentioned in detail regarding the important aspects of it.
    What's next?
  • SoreShoulderSoreShoulder Member Posts: 2,605 ✭✭✭
    kimi said:
    kimi said:
    BTW, the picture in your article shows some rather well dressed, meaning well to do, farmers and/or farm laborer's.   Probably farmers who owned their own land, long after the war!  And Woven Baskets to put cotton in?!  Are you kidding me...who in the hell ever picked cotton like that?!  More like a classic staged Photo OP!
    What did you think a file photo put in an article was supposed to prove?
    That's just like saying Pearl Harbor did not happen because there was a show that mentioned it and it portrayed file footage of Dauntlesses and Avengers bombing. So they use the wrong file photo sometimes, what's your point?
    You're not stupid...your reading comprehension will allow you to know full well what the few points are that I have made.  But as a refresher, one point had to do with militias during the periods addressed, the second had to do with making the Southern slave owners out to be a bunch of rapists, (ALL TOTAL BS), and the last had to do with the photo as I mentioned in detail regarding the important aspects of it.
    This is the point I wanted to bring up from the article because suppose it happened voluntarily, after the war, in addition to involuntarily, before the war, in order to correct what happened involuntarily, before the war.
    "The US and other former British colonies generally forced enslaved people to have children in order to maintain workforces -- which could explain why the children of an enslaved woman were more likely to have an enslaved father. Segregation in the US could also be a factor, the authors theorized."
  • kimikimi Member Posts: 44,609 ✭✭✭
    edited August 18
    kimi said:
    kimi said:
    BTW, the picture in your article shows some rather well dressed, meaning well to do, farmers and/or farm laborer's.   Probably farmers who owned their own land, long after the war!  And Woven Baskets to put cotton in?!  Are you kidding me...who in the hell ever picked cotton like that?!  More like a classic staged Photo OP!
    What did you think a file photo put in an article was supposed to prove?
    That's just like saying Pearl Harbor did not happen because there was a show that mentioned it and it portrayed file footage of Dauntlesses and Avengers bombing. So they use the wrong file photo sometimes, what's your point?
    You're not stupid...your reading comprehension will allow you to know full well what the few points are that I have made.  But as a refresher, one point had to do with militias during the periods addressed, the second had to do with making the Southern slave owners out to be a bunch of rapists, (ALL TOTAL BS), and the last had to do with the photo as I mentioned in detail regarding the important aspects of it.
    This is the point I wanted to bring up from the article because suppose it happened voluntarily, after the war, in addition to involuntarily, before the war, in order to correct what happened involuntarily, before the war.
    "The US and other former British colonies generally forced enslaved people to have children in order to maintain workforces -- which could explain why the children of an enslaved woman were more likely to have an enslaved father. Segregation in the US could also be a factor, the authors theorized."
    What do you mean correct it?!  Whose going to correct the injustices that occurred in the remainder of the world since before and after the coming of Christ?  Whose going to correct the injustices forced upon Southern people since the war, most especially during twelve years of reconstruction when their land was stolen on pennies on the dollar.  Land that belonged to people who did not have slaves?  I d' die and got to hell before I would voluntarily pay reparations to some no good SOB that's braying for them.  Reparations that have been going on for over 150 years in thousands of different instances in large sums of money and benefits at times.  This CRAP will never stop unless we stand together and end it!  So, where do you stand on this issue?
    What's next?
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 21,830 ✭✭✭✭
    There are many who can trace their ancestry back to an enslaved person.  There are documented descendants of Sally Jennings, for example, but there are 1000's if not millions more.
    Maybe that's what you're supposed to believe.  

    What if during the great migration, people got their identities stolen and were murdered, then the Africans who stole their identity settled in a new city where no one but their own kind (illegal immigrants) knew them?

    What if they got rich men from Africa to make the ultimate sacrifice and come here and stud for them because the womenfolk didn't want to starve in their old age for not having children to care for them and the men folk didn't want the world to know they had been gelded?  Or maybe just because they knew they needed a bit of help to get by, if they had been bred to be easy to control.   

    What if families fostered black orphans from Africa because they feared for their retirement?

    What if illegals simply bribed people to say they were part of the family?  They didn't have to talk to whites back then.

    If I am right, then the people who were slaves here are mostly long gone, so I'm not saying every black person is incapable of living without close supervision.   But maybe in 1861, it was so, due to careful, selective breeding, then they got changed out due to various processes after the war.

    Did anyone notice the bulk of today's African-Americans come from places that were very oppressive foreign colonies during the post-US-Civil War period, like German Angola?  They are also said to have had genocides, meaning a lot of people vanished. 
    Anything is possible, soreshoulder.
    Some things are possible, but not probable.

    Dollars to donuts there remains a large percentage of blacks in America who have ancestors who were slaves on American soil.  So what?  They have been American citizens for 150+ years.  Most have taken advantage of that fact and have progressed to a point of success.  Some have not.  Some demand that a society that no longer exists pay them for damages to people that have not existed for a century.  These people should be countered with the obvious facts of our shared history.

    Fantasy scenarios do nothing.
    You're talking supposition.  Photographs were expensive in those days.  Records could be falsified and identities stolen.

    Plus, the South really really needed money for weapons.

    There might be hard evidence in the genetic record.  If that doesn't interest you, why not leave it alone?

    If found, it would take a lot of steam out of the debate.

     Whereas few liberals will ever accept that the descendants of slaves are not owed just because it's been 150 years and the society that should pay them no longer exists.
    I'm talking supposition?  

    A fascinating statement from the author of a thesis that relies entirely upon 'must have', 'perhaps', 'what if', and 'maybe'.






    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • SoreShoulderSoreShoulder Member Posts: 2,605 ✭✭✭
    What do you mean correct it?!
    Suppose they tried to correct the selective breeding that had occurred to them during slavery, by seeking out the smartest African they could find after slavery.
  • SoreShoulderSoreShoulder Member Posts: 2,605 ✭✭✭
    I'm talking supposition?  

    A fascinating statement from the author of a thesis that relies entirely upon 'must have', 'perhaps', 'what if', and 'maybe'.






    There's no real proof for the conventional version of events either, and it flies in the face of reason that they would lose the war for running out of money when they had salable goods.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 21,830 ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 19

    Considering the Union, Britain, Portugal, etc. had banned the slave trade in the Atlantic, the Confederacy really did not have a market for their slaves. Your supposition falls flat.

    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • kimikimi Member Posts: 44,609 ✭✭✭
    edited August 19

    They ran out of money and men. There were only 125,000 Confederate soldiers on duty throughout the entire South from Texas to Virginia and the Southwest, whereas the North had an endless stream of immigrants to conscript into service, with about 675,000 in uniform, half of which was on duty at the war's end.

    What's next?
  • SoreShoulderSoreShoulder Member Posts: 2,605 ✭✭✭
    edited August 20

    Considering the Union, Britain, Portugal, etc. had banned the slave trade in the Atlantic, the Confederacy really did not have a market for their slaves. Your supposition falls flat.

    From the Wikipedia page on the slave trade in Brazil:"Nonetheless, despite laws banning their importation, between 1808 and 1888 more than a million new slaves were forcibly shipped to Brazil."  Sure sounds like there was a criminally strong demand. 

    From  www.realhistories.org.uk/articles/archive/europe-and-the-… :
    "However, unlike Portugal, Spain did not have forts in Africa and therefore relied on the other European slave trading countries to provide their colonies with slaves. The slave trade ended in 1867 with a last ship arriving in Cuba and slavery was abolished in 1886."
    Perhaps it should say "European and Confederate?"  Possible, to say the least.  Cuba is a short row from Florida, and why not row?  Blockading ships could not see you until they were quite close.   Plus, the lack of slave forts in Africa would mean they had a stronger demand for slaves from other European powers. 
  • SoreShoulderSoreShoulder Member Posts: 2,605 ✭✭✭
    edited August 20
    kimi said:

    They ran out of money and men.


    That's exactly why they would have sold as many slaves as they could abroad. They could either lose and have to give them up for nothing, or sell them, hope to win the war, and then hope to repurchase others on credit because of their proven ability to earn money from their land.
  • serfserf Member Posts: 7,398 ✭✭✭
      There is no longer a black race in America. Yet they all are considered pure black under civil rights act and given preference. It's time to stop catering and giving colored people handouts and pleading with blacks that whites are not better off, because of their skin color.
     But black males have the most fatherless children as an ethnic group with the highest percentage of males in prison for a good reasons they commit more violent crimes.
                                                             serf
  • SoreShoulderSoreShoulder Member Posts: 2,605 ✭✭✭
    serf said:
      There is no longer a black race in America. Yet they all are considered pure black under civil rights act and given preference. It's time to stop catering and giving colored people handouts and pleading with blacks that whites are not better off, because of their skin color.
    Most Affirmative Action is probably eaten up by the European-Americans with traces of African heritage. We now know that nearly all of Europe has significant East African DNA.
  • SoreShoulderSoreShoulder Member Posts: 2,605 ✭✭✭
    Bump, edited for clarity.
Sign In or Register to comment.