Thursday, August 23, 2007

Ridiculous DNA for Black Americans.





















This treatise is in reaction to all black Americans tracing their roots from Africa and finding out that they have regal blood. To help Black Americans trace their roots, there are DNA groups all over with most of them unraveling that they were kings and queens, princesses and princes. This treatise is to create awareness that surrounds the bogus DNA ditched out to black Americans, but also to show how one could trace their origins. The results will be based on logic, African history, biblical analyses, linguistics and oral tradition. This is not an attempt to discredit the validity of DNA; it is rather to expose the misuse thereof. No one disagrees that DNA is a proven science. However, there have been several occasions where it has been misused like when the FBI faked an entire forensic field of forensic science.[1] DNA could be faulty if results have been contaminated like the case of John Schneeberger,[2] when a mistaken identity is used as was the ruse of Annie Dookhan,[3] or faulty equipment could result in a wrong DNA conclusion. More so, there is no human test or equipment that will ever be faultless. If it was, why is it not the only evidence in the conviction of a criminal case in the court of law? Ben Arrey writes:

"Dear Prince,
It is very interesting to read from you. I strongly agree with your findings on origin for African Americans. Sometime ago in 2002 and after, I worked with Dr. Rick Kittles at Howard University sequencing DNA from different tribal groups from Nigeria, Ghana, Liberia, the Caribbean and even from Cameroon thanks to the efforts of professor Angwafor from CUSS in Yaoundé. Beyond that, as a DNA forensic expert witness, we always report statistics for three major populations, Caucasian, African American and Hispanics for the genotypes of an unknown piece of evidence. The science of DNA is true and informative but hardly is it used exclusively for conviction in a court of law in the US. I appreciate your piece on this".

That is how greats like TD Jakes, Whitaker, Oprah, Goldberg, Gates and many others were conned with those bogus DNA results.[4] They even said that Jakes was an Igbo king, and Steve Wonder was from the royal family in Ghana.  I am very conscious that the people in the days of Moses had their own science in tracing their genealogies, and that DNA will be a God given asset today. Nonetheless, like any other asset, it could be abused. How can Black Americans be working with websites that do not have a single African country in their database? What do you expect when you pay a prophet to prophesy? They will never prophesy doom to you. To keep the oil flowing, one has to protect the pipes. Are Black Americans from Europe and Asia, or are they from Africa? Why are they using European databases then? As such, one has to fault the DNA results that claim that every Black American is from the royal house.
Historically, the majority of slaves were not from the royal families. How then is it that almost every one of the popular stars came from a royal family? That is impossible because although the child of a tribal leader could be sold out like the story of Olaudah Equaino, it was neither the king nor his children. History records only one king who was sold overseas. That was king Whydah who was captured and sold by the king of Dahomey in the 18th century. Would then the sale of one childless king disperse that many kings and queens or princes and princesses?
More so, it was uncommon to have the children of kings and queens or chiefs sold out except when they became turncoats, and to the best of historical recollections, the loyalty in that era does not exist today. The sale of rebellious princes was an exception because the males were instead deprived from inheriting the throne while the woman was liquidated. The Kings enjoyed great power, popularity and sex from concubines and slave girls to be shipped. The premise was so highly respected that the royal children were not sent to school for fear they were beaten or touched by the teacher.
The early educated people were mostly slave kids because the harsh discipline that pupils and students received from teachers was considered punishment. It was misjudged that only the slave child would put up with it. In the Sub-Saharan region, even if a neighboring village invaded and captured a neighboring king or chief, they did not sell him. Instead, they kept him as a slave to the captor king. Generally, most slaves were criminals, prisoners of wars (POWs), cursed individuals, obanjes ,Osus, debtors, or extremely wretched individuals who wanted a means of survival; thus, they solicited to be sold somewhere. 
Fewer women were sold because they needed them back at home more, especially since the plantations could not be done without them. Women were only taken in the course of shortage of men. When slavery first began, women were not kidnapped. The trade was widened to include women because of the dead of men during the voyage, and the necessity for cheap sex to the sycophantic slave masters.
Notwithstanding, it is my belief that the Bible gives us some help in tracing our ancestry, and DNA could merely top if off.  The external evidence validating the authenticity and infallibility of the Bible reside in annotations of  historians like Josephus or even Herodutus the Father Of Lies”, Cornelius Tacitus , Suetonius and even Secundus who were against the Bible.
Most individuals raise the problem of inaccuracy of African History or Oral Tradition. Oral tradition may have the disadvantage of poor preservation, but it is not tantamount to spurious history. 
Nonetheless, from the synthesis of biblical narration and linguistics overhand, there are basic steps to trace one’s roots. The very first method is by comparing physiognomies: facial features (Gen 1:27) and skin color. When you look at the Ethiopian, Kenyan, Nigerian, Ghanaian or Cameroonian you know where they came from without anyone telling you. The Arabs of the Maghreb are different from the Bororos in Sub Sahara. If facial features are insufficient, you use linguistics differentiation as shown in judges 12:6 and Acts 2:6-12. If you met an African and you wanted to know their country, you listened to their native language. Within that language, their accent will tell their country, and this variation in orthoepy usually leads to the tribe (Num 13:4-16). For example, when you met an Upper Bayang and a Central Bayang, you knew the difference because of the usage of /gh/. The combination of voice velar plosive /g/ with the voiceless glottal fricative /h/ usually gave the similitude of a long /a:/ like in oghoh (you see). Meanwhile, to the Upper Bayang, the same sound gave voice velar plosive PEAM (pulmonic Airstream mechanism). In others words, the Central Bayang will mute the /g/ while the upper Bayang will aspirate it. In some cases, the voiceless alveolar fricative /s/ was used as the voiceless post Alveolar fricative / /. After tracing the tribe, you find the family by tracing the generations from the great grand ancestor (Numbers 3:17-20; 27:7-11).
              Some people argue that most Black Americans have the same accents, so it will be difficult to use ortheopic methods to discern their genealogy. That is not true. In exceptional cases do two people have the same accents, if we listen closely. How many people have the same voice?
The next step will be the last name, but there is a slight difficulty with the last name because most of the last names by the Black Americans were from the slave masters, either by mere nomenclature (the only they heard and liked) or because the man was the father of the child. That is why you hear a black American with the name Carter, and the White America too having Carter. The idea of having a white person and a black person with the same last name is not just for onomastic reasons. If traced carefully, one would realize that the slave owners birthed the children. Why then would children from that ancestry say that they are African Americans? Since children from mixed parents (slave owner and slave) were not permitted to marry their white counterparts, they remained with the other slaves or mixed people, but they still carried the last name.
Should individuals be worried at all about DNA genealogy? While I believe it would motivate the black American who wants to invest in Africa to do so if they knew their origin than if they had no clue, I still do not see the raison’ d’etre of having or coming from a royal house before doing so. All the DNA that concludes that the Black American has royal blood is ridiculous DNA as I have shown above. Most importantly, the Black Americans do not need to trace their roots. They are Americans and not Africans. They are never going back to Africa because Africa is neither their continent nor  does it provide any country they could call theirs. At most, they could be honorary citizens or naturalized citizens of given African countries. Even the children of Africans who were born here in the United states of America are not African Americans; they are Americans! I doubt if much attention is given to the wretched black American who says he or she is a Cameroonian. How many presidents will bequeath on that individual regal privileges? I think that the bygones must be bygones and the Black Americans who want to have a sense of originating from Africa should adopt any African country they feel comfortable and forget about this DNA scam because you do not have any DNA from Africa in those databases to find a match.

Until then, life is short: live it happily wherever you are.

Hamilton Ayuk

"Do you have family here?"

People always ask me each time I meet a new person, “Do you have family here?” Sometimes, when I meet a white person, he or she always...