Kunta Kinte has white relatives.
(archive.ph)
Comments (19)
sorted by:
I’m surprised this is a surprise. I’m around 20% white and I’ve known this since childhood. I mean there is a reason he isn’t as dark as Africans. Some slave owners would have children on the side with their slaves. I thought that was common knowledge
I think it is common knowledge, why people seem surprised about it is another story.
Somewhat related, south-americans used to identify themselves with the conquistadors not so long ago. It is just recent that it is more beneficial for them to consider themselves "native". Many of them used to identify as white.
Being white, even partially white, is such an evil thing that everyone wants to distance themselves from it.
Well that’s what happens when you have a long term anti white agenda
These people love to accuse all of the (white, not Jewish -- Jews are innocent) slaveowners being rapists obsessed with their black slaves and seem to conveniently forget that rape does sometimes result in offspring.
Which is also weird, because according to liberals 150% of abortions are due to rape.
But also, all owner/slave sexual relationships are rape, because slaves can't consent.
Checkmate, atheists.
Yea. I honestly don’t get why they would think they are 100 percent African. I haven’t seen one of those “white supremacist takes DNA test” type shows in years
Good point.
It must suck to be this insecure.
They are not insecure. They are blue screening.
He needs to collect reparations from himself!
Everybody is related if you go back far enough.
Australian aborigines are not related to any of the ethnic groups of Europe.
If you're a Bible literalist, all humans are descended from Adam and Eve. If you're an evolutionist, all humans are descended from Y-Adam and mt-Eve.
There were other humans unrelated to Adam, according to Genesis 4:16. Cain was exiled to a land east of Eden, where he found a wife and had children. This implies the existence of other peoples even from a literalist perspective.
As for the evolutionary perspective, the degree of relation is key; it’s hardly appropriate to consider two species the same simply because they shared a common ancestor at some point prior. If that were the case, nearly anything with a spine could be considered a human relative.
The distinction between “related in a evolutionary sense” and “related in a genetic/ancestral sense” is somewhat muddy, but in terms of connotation I believe your original comment to be largely pedantic.