PDA

View Full Version : Native Australians


Aboriginal God
12-11-2006, 09:30 PM
Explanation for the origins of the Aborigines in Australia

"The origins of the Australian Aborigines
has never been a mystery to Africans."

As far as Africans are concerned, the Australian Aborigines, Trobian Islanders and Melasesians are all part of the protohistoric African Diaspora. However, what we have is not a mere migration of people to Australia but a wide 'Black belt' that circled the tropical, subtropical and temperate zones even before the 'evolution' of African migrants to Europe and Asia and the gradual change due to climatic adaptation into Caucasiod and Mongolod (sic) 'races'.
The Black belt included an area around the globe as far north as siberia and as far south as Australian and New Zealand. The entire area was peopled by the protohistoric Negroid racial type, which is what most Africans see Aboriginals and other Blacks in Asia and the Pacific as. Why, because there are tribes in Africa who have features identical to the Australian Aborigines, the Trobian Islanders and the Melanesians. Also, there are cultural traits found in Africa that are also found in Australia and Melanesia, India and other places.

For example, the boomerang was a common weapon for hunting small game in Africa about 10,000 to 20,000 years ago [a fact that may mean Australian Aborigines and Native Africans interacted].

Cave paintings in the Sahara which was wet during that time show hunters with boomerangs as well as bows and arrows. Do the Australian Aborigines use the bow and arrow. If no, then they may have left Africa before its invention.

Another cultural trait is skin scarification. This is common in Africa as well as Melanesia and perhaps Australian as well. [Definitely in Australia].

The language spoken by Australian Aborigines have characteristics in the suffix and prefix forms that are identical to African languages [all 200 Australian Aboriginal languages??] particularly the Mende language family, which was once widespread throughout the Sahara and was spread to India by Blacks who migrated to India in protohistoric times.

The Aborigines are related to a number of ethnic groups in Africa. Among them are the Tibbou, who have characteristics identical to Aborigines, others are the Nagas, who are spread from West Africa to Sudan to South Arabia all the way east to Indo China. The Nagas are Blacks of the Negro type.

The point that the Aborigines currently were a part of a much larger and wider group of people spread around the world and are the same as African Negro types is important. It clearly shows that although Aboriginals migrated to Australia about 100,000 years ago were among the very first groups of people to migrate out of the African continent. (See The Black Untouchables of India by V.T.Rajsher, Runoko Rashidi www.saxakali.com and Y.N.Kly, Clarity Press, Atlanta, Georgia, USA)

However, they also migrated to Europe, the Americas, East Asia and other places during the same period. According to many scientists and anthropologists who have done work on this issue, they were along with other Blacks the first people on this planet and were to be found on every continent. In fact Blacks were also in the Americas as early as 75,000BC according to C.S.Gladwin (The Gladwin Thesis, McGraw Hill Books,1947)

The very first Blacks who went to Europe, went there about the same time Aborigines migrated to Asia, Europe and Australia. These Blacks are called 'Grimaldi Negroids'. They were homosapians similar to modern humans and they were basically hunters, however their social organization and culture was quite advanced.

Now, over the many years, the Australian Aborigines were called 'Archaic White', however from the African perspective, it was the Blacks who moved into Europe and Asia who gradually adapted to the temperature and differentiated to suit the climate. Thus, Whites should be called 'archaic black' rather than saying Aborigines are 'archaic white' unless they mean that the present day 'white' population of Europe once looked like the Black Aborigines...that is a common belief already.

The Blacks from whom the Australian Aborigines most likely came from still live in Africa and the migration of the cousins of the Aborigines did not stop about 60,000 years ago, nor did they migrate only to India, SE Asia and Australia in protohistoric times. There is evidence that a group of Black African people called the 'Anu' who lived in northern Africa / Egypt and followed the Bear cult (bout 5000BC and back to protohistoric times, see the book, African Presence in Early Asia, by Ivan Van Sertima, Transaction Publications, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA) they made a series of migrations to Asia. That is documented in ancient Egyptian texts. They were related to Aboriginals and were of a 'Negro' type in color, features and origins. Many went to northern Asia and China, others went to Japan.

Well, there are people called 'Ainu' in Japan, who seem to have affinities close to Australian Aborigines and Africans and Melanesians. Anu is also a common African name and both the prefix and suffix. Today many are mixed, but a strong 'Negroid' racial characteristics can still be seen, although there is also a strong Mongoloid set of features as well. They have been said to have 'Caucasian' blood, however some experts believe they are among these Blacks who once lived throughout Eastern Asia, and who later mixed with the Mongoloid to create the Polynesians, some Philipinos and other groups in Asia today. (See the text. Susu Economics The History of Pan-African Trade, Commerce, Money and Wealth, ISB# 1-58721-454-7, 1st Books Library, 2511 West Third Street, Suite 1, Bloomington, Indiana 47404 www1stbooks.com
email: 1stbooks@1stbooks.com).

As for the black people of Melanesia, such as the Fijians, New Caledonians and others, they also began settling Asia and the Pacific in protohistoric times back to about 100,000 years ago, most lived in China, SE Asia and the landmass before the Mongoloids began expanding southwards and pushing the Blacks out of Asia. Yet, according to some Fijians (the President of the Fijian community in Los Angeles (California), some of their people were still migrating from Africa about 2000 years before Christ, Whilie Ben Tangghamma, the former Foreign Minister of Papua New Guinea pointed in the book, The Black Untouchables of India, that all the Blacks of Asia have African roots and connections going back to protohistoric times about 100,ooo years ago.
See the Dalit website at www.dalitstan.org

Apart from the Blacks who settled in Asia and Australia from prehistoric Africa, there are a number of tribes and nations right here in the U.S. and the Americans such as the Washitaw Nation, the Afro-Darienite, the Choco Region Blacks of Columbia, the Garifuna who are of pre-columbian and prehistoric origins. The Washitaw Nation built the first empire in the Southern U.S. and the Mississippi Valley and once owned the entire Louisiana Purchase Territories, which were annexed. Recently in 1991, the U.S. returned about 70,000 square acres after the Washitaw won in a court battle. The Washitaw Nations was a great civilization of Pyramid and Mound builders who had a maritime civilization and trade with Africa before Columbus. see www.hotep.org

Aboriginal God
12-11-2006, 09:45 PM
Bruce Bower

The stormy scientific debate over the origins of the first Americans has taken a surprising geographic turn. Human skulls unearthed in Brazil and ranging in age from about 8,000 to 11,000 years look more like modern Africans and Australian aborigines than like modern Asians or Native Americans, according to a report presented in Kansas City at last week's annual meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.

This finding contradicts the influential theory that Asians were the first to cross the now submerged Bering land bridge to North America around 12,000 years ago, says Walter A. Neves of the University of S„o Paulo. Instead, African migrants actually may have been the first to take this northern route into the Americas, theorizes Neves, who directed the Brazilian excavation and fossil analysis. At least 45,000 years ago, he adds, migrating Africans reached Australia via a southern route.

The exact timing of population movements that brought Africans to what is now South America remains unknown, the Brazilian scientist says.

"The anatomical similarities of Australians and the first South Americans are related to their shared African ancestry," Neves says. "We need to understand patterns of prehistoric human migration through Siberia much better."

In 1994 and 1995, Neves and his coworkers excavated Santana do Riacho 1, the largest known prehistoric burial site in the Americas. The researchers uncovered the skeletal remains of at least 40 individuals in 28 separate graves.

Radiocarbon analyses indicated that the burials occurred over a 3,000-year span, beginning about 11,000 years ago.

The Brazilian scientists compared measurements of the intact skulls of six adultsótwo men and four womenówith those of skulls from modern populations of Africans, aboriginal Australians, Asians, and Native Americans.

The Santana do Riacho 1 skulls exhibited considerable variation in shape, Neves remarks. However, they shared several traits with Africans and aboriginal Australians. These characteristics include a long, narrow brain case and eye sockets set relatively low on the face.

An 11,000-year-old skull found at another Brazilian site a decade ago displays these same traits, Neves adds.

He suspects that African-based travelers reached South America by land rather than by sea.

Other anthropologists familiar with the Brazilian skulls agree that they look African in some respects. However, they emphasize that the nature and timing of early forays into the Americas remain poorly understood (SN: 4/15/00, p. 244).

For example, skull measurements provide only ambiguous clues for untangling the evolution of populations, comments Richard L. Jantz of the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. If ancient Brazilian settlers exhibited a large amount of anatomical variability, it may be a coincidence that Neves found a few who show African similarities, Jantz says.

Moreover, the few available North American human skulls from 8,000 to 11,000 years ago bear little resemblance to modern populations, including Africans, he maintains. An analysis of the 8,400-year-old skeleton of Kennewick Man, discovered in Washington State in 1996, revealed some anatomical links to modern Polynesians, further complicating this picture (SN: 5/15/99, p. 315).

Prehistoric humans everywhere shared many skeletal features that underwent regional modifications due to factors such as natural selection and random genetic changes, proposes Joseph F. Powell of the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque. Those influences, rather than a distinct African origin, may account for the Brazilian skulls' shape, he asserts.

"The Brazilian specimens have an African look," Powell says. "But what that means is anybody's guess."

Aboriginal God
12-11-2006, 09:55 PM
The Genetic Framework is the name I have given to a theory that I developed in 1998, after discovering that traits such as a yellow appearance to the whites of the eyes, oily skin, excessive perspiration, obesity and an excessive fear of the dark all apparently have links to hereditary disease. From growing up in Africa, I was aware that these traits are more common among Africans than they are among Western Europeans.

Since 1998, I have been trying to establish a cause for these disease traits. The available scientific evidence is still very embryonic, but it all seems to be pointing to a viral cause, specifically to viral elements within junk DNA. Although junk DNA comprises as much as 97% of the genome, it has been ignored by medical science, as it was thought to be inert and had no effect on us. Now this perception is changing, as medical science is starting to realise that junk DNA is the cause of serious chronic illness and that the traits mentioned above are the early symptoms of these more serious illnesses.

If Africans have a higher predisposition to these traits than Europeans do, then they should have a higher level of disease (viruses) in their genomes that gives them that predisposition. To balance that tendency, Africans also appear to have more "developed" genes that bestows them with a number of attributes (superior athletic performance being one) and also gives them a greater level of resistance to the effects of hereditary disease. It is this mix of different levels of disease and different levels of genetic development between the different population groups that makes up the Genetic Framework - it helps to explain the boundaries of how genes affect us and how junk DNA affects us.

The Genetic Framework also has implications for our understanding of human evolution. Current genetic evidence claims that Aboriginals were the first modern humans to migrate out of Africa 65,000 years ago and that everyone else followed later, gradually driving the earlier forms of mankind they encountered to extinction. This is known as the Recent African Origin (RAO) theory and it has been challenged by anthropologists, who say that it contradicts the fossil record, which indicates an element of interbreeding between modern man and the earlier versions of mankind.

When travelling in Australia, I realised that the African disease traits are also common among Aboriginals. If the viral elements that cause these genetic traits are common to both Africans and Aboriginals, then they probably existed in the genome at the time the Aboriginals migrated out of Africa. If Europeans do not share these viral elements, then it is unlikely that they migrated out of Africa after the Aboriginals, as the RAO theory suggests - it is more likely that they migrated before the Aboriginals, which tends to support the anthropological view of evolution.

As medical science has ignored junk DNA up until recently, it appears to have overlooked the significance of the similar disease profiles that exist between Africans and Aboriginals. It is important that this point is understood, because if the RAO theory is incorrect then this indicates a huge flaw in our understanding of the functioning of genes and this flaw can only be hampering our understanding of genetic disease and therefore our ability to treat these diseases.