BBC News, March 21, 2008
European colonisation of South America resulted in a dramatic shift from a native American population to a largely mixed one, a genetic study has shown.
It suggests male European settlers mated with native and African women, and slaughtered the men.
But it adds that areas like Mexico City “still preserve the genetic heritage” because these areas had a high number of natives at the time of colonisation.
The findings appear in the journal Public Library of Science Genetics.
The international team of researchers wrote: “The history of Latin America has entailed a complex process of population mixture between natives and recent immigrants across a vast geographic region.
“Few details are known about this process or about how it shaped the genetic make-up of Latin American populations.”
‘Clear signature’
The study examined 249 unrelated individuals from 13 Mestizo populations (people from a mixed European/native American origin) in seven countries, ranging from Chile in the south to Mexico in the north.
“There is a clear genetic signature,” explained lead author Andres Luiz-Linares from University College London.
“The initial mixing occurred predominately between immigrant and European men and native and African women.”
He said that the study showed that it was a pattern that was uniform across Latin America.
“We see it in all the populations we examined, so it is clearly a historical fact that the ancestors of these populations can be traced to matings between immigrant men and native and African women.”
The researchers found that within the genetic landscape of Latin America, there were variations.
“The Mestizo with the highest native ancestry are in areas which historically have had relatively large native populations,” they reported.
This included Andean regions and cities such as Mexico City, where major civilisations were already established by the time Europeans reached the continent in the late 15th Century.
“By contrast, the Mestizo with the highest European ancestry are from areas with relatively low pre-Columbian native population density and where the current native population is sparse,” they added.
Bloody past
Explaining the fate of native males when the Europeans arrived, Professor Luiz-Linares said: “It is a very sad and terrible historical fact, they were basically annihilated.
“Not only did the European settlers take away land and property, they also took away the women and, as much as possible, they exterminated the men.”
He said the findings could help people change their perception of Latin American history.
“It is very important in terms of rescuing the past and recognising the roots of the population, and the living presence of natives within the current population,” Professor Luiz-Linares explained.
As well as providing an insight into the past, the team hopes that the findings will also help shape studies aimed at identifying and analysing diseases.
Original article
(Posted on March 21, 2008)
Comments
It’s quite amazing they’re able to makes these findings from thousands of miles away and from records 300 years old… Nothing escapes their eye.
Posted by at 4:59 PM on March 21
“Explaining the fate of native males when the Europeans arrived, Professor Luiz-Linares said: “It is a very sad and terrible historical fact, they were basically annihilated.”
Strange he doesn’t say anything about the constant, ongoing slaughter between these so-called indigenous peoples and their proclities toward attacking, capturing, torturing and murdering each other. The indians were blood-thirsty murderers long before the white man set foot there.
It looks as if the mestizos have in Luiz-linares their own preacher Jeremiah Wright.
Oh, the hate against whitey knows no bounds.
Posted by Robert Kelly at 7:58 PM on March 21
It’s quite sinister how Marxist professors supposingly qualified in entirely separate fields, ie, history and genetics always manage to join forces and end up placing inordinate emphasis on historical origins rather than maintaining focus on the genetic components of heredity particularly when the supposed object of the exercise in the first place, is to uncover the underlying structure of disease mechanisms and their effects, etc.
On perusing such an article, one would expect to find it dealing with disease complexities and suitable solutions, but instead one is yet again greeted with another ‘denegrate the white race’ or a ‘bash whitey’ propaganda piece.
When we consider that Europeans contracted lethal diseases originating in what was formally referred to as the New World, carried home by returning explorers and armies, not one such study is ever elaborated upon and heavily publicised as if to show nonwhites up in a bad light.
Furthermore, an article I once read stated that Amerindian elders going back in time, often related stories to their successive generations of how their forbearers, upon arriving on the North American continent, came across red-haired, fair-skinned folk crossing the Arizona desert in pursuit of suitable living spaces and who were set upon by the Indians, killed with some taken prisoner.
Subsequently, there is every reason to believe that the European women would have been taken as concubines and very possibly, the descendants of this mixed progeny were actually the ones or amongst those brought over to England from time to time between the 16th and 18th century.
Again, the fact that members of nonwhite tribes came to be in ancestral white homelands through being brought in by Jewish merchants and native whites, confers no rights or territorial claims upon any nonwhite race to white homelands so the manner in which these Marxist professors are revising history by distorting established truths and factual accounts, must be challenged at every turn regardless of how seemingly innocuous their assertions appear.
Conversely, for example, the fact that white Europeans set foot in India five odd thousand years ago does not confer any rights or claims upon those white Europeans to that territory. They were still not the first inhabitants of India, but rather were invading immigrants.
Posted by A Swain at 10:55 PM on March 21
Like the Aztecs weren’t killing Indians in droves with their human sacrifices. It was all Cortez and his nasty Spaniards, all 500 of them.
Posted by at 12:17 AM on March 22
Look out Europe!
Now 400 million mestizos will seek to claim Europe as their “other” ancestral homeland and come calling…
Posted by the Narrator... at 1:27 AM on March 22
“still preserve the genetic heritage”
I dose of diversity is not required here? Does it work only the other way around?
“It is a very sad and terrible historical fact, they were basically annihilated.”
Sad and terrible in their case, much desired as far as the white man is concerned.
“By contrast, the Mestizo with the highest European ancestry are from areas with relatively low pre-Columbian native population density and where the current native population is sparse,” they added.”
This must be the area formerly known as Texas.
Posted by at 5:25 AM on March 22
Well this is definitely an encouraging development. White males just don’t have enough blood libels looming over our heads, and it’s always assuring to know that researchers are working day and night to dig up more.
When they aren’t publishing the latest spurious black innovation, that is.
Posted by mm at 6:14 AM on March 22
Nonsense. No one had to be “slaughtered” by anybody. The native women, as happens with women everywhere, would naturally gravitate to men who had access to resources, food, wealth, power — ie. the new conquerors, rather than the defeated ones. We saw the same thing in Germany and Japan after WW2. And everywhere else.
Posted by voter at 7:31 AM on March 22
Lol….nothing of the sort happened. The truth is the same truth white men experience whenever they travel to non-white countries. The women there show VAST sexual preference for them over the native men because the native men are of low quality. Quite literally, they chase after us aggressively and wantonly.
That is what happened in South America (and to a lesser extent North America). Without repressive sexual mores, these people literally co-opted European genes over their own. That same behavior today is extremely widespread in those countries.
Posted by at 10:03 AM on March 22
Well there you have it. The Spanish imperialists were race-mixers unlike most of the Europeans who settled to the north and created the United States. And now of course, all the mestizos want to come to America.
Posted by at 12:55 PM on March 22
After such a ‘hard labor’, many years of ‘research’, millions of dollars in trash, here is an amazing discovery!!! Andres Luiz-Linares found out that white Europeans slept with local women. Hallelujah! to Andres Luiz-Linares and his numerous staff. Praise genetics. Without it this discovery would be impossible!!!
Posted by alex at 1:28 PM on March 22
Another example of how hate-whitey leftwing propaganda has corrupted supposedly “academic” studies: There was no widespread “slaughter” of Indians anywhere by European migrants. Widespread deaths came from smallpox. The only wholesale annihilations of Indian populations was by other Indians, and that had been going on long before white migrants to the Americas. Examples were the Anastasi Indians of present day U.S. Southwest, who were exterminated by other Indian invaders from territories in present day Mexico. The mass slaughters carried out by Inca, Mayan, and Aztec invaders is well documented. And the slaughter of the Aztec after the arrival of Cortez was not done by the Spaniards, but by other Indian tribes who had been brutalized by the Aztec for centuries and used the arrival of the Spaniards as an opportunity to overthrow their long time oppressors. Even the Spaniards were horrified at the bloodbath carried out by Indian tribes who’d joined with them against the Aztec.
But notice that when such sweeping accusations are made against Europeans, there are no standards of evidence required.
Why don’t they do an article on a REAL annihilation and theft of land that occurred on an unprecedented scale: The extermination of not only the Pygmies, but especially the Bushmen, the original inhabitants of 95% of sub-Sahara Africa, and the theft of their land, by the Bantu blacks who originated from a very small area of West Africa. This process continues to this day.
Posted by at 9:32 PM on March 22
“It suggests male European settlers mated with native and African women, and slaughtered the men.”
This is so patently bogus, and goes unchallenged simply because it fuels more hatred of whites, which is the in-thing these days. First, they ridiculously lump Africans in the equation. Why would Europeans purchase black African slaves from black African slave traders on the coast of Africa, transport them to the Americas, only to slaughter the African men upon arrival? Why not just purchase female African slaves in the first place and save all the expense of buying the male African slaves you’re just going to slaughter once you’ve gone to all the expense and trouble of transporting them across the Atlantic?
Now on to the idea that Europeans slaughtered the male Indians and took the female Indians as their wives (a common practice of the Indian tribes). Note this “study” supposedly “suggests” this (note the weasel words) based solely on present day genetics. The first thing a true scientist does when he has an hypothesis (based upon one of many possible explanations) is to try to see if there is independent corroboration. But there is not. In fact, the very thoughoughly documented history of that period proves no such grand scale systematic slaughters ever took place. But such facts don’t get in the way when you have a modern day political ax to grind. So what do they base their assertions on? They base it on genetic markers that pass down from males: And they see European male genetic markers more than female. This of course does not at all imply that therefore the inflammatory assertion that male Indians were “slaughtered” is true! The reason of course is the fact that the first Iberian European arrivals were almost all males. In regions of high Indian populations, as early census data showed, these European male settlers were only a small fraction of the total population, even after small pox had run its tragic course. Naturally these European males would take on Indian wives: There simply weren’t European females available. But most pairings were still between Indian males and females. It’s not that there was a great shortage of females since there is normally more females in any population than males. Especially in those harsh times. After many generations where now mixed offspring mate with pure Indians, eventually almost everyone ends up with European blood as well as Indian. Especially since there was a constant arrival of more European males. This is all part of the actual documented historical record. No where is there any kind of widespread “slaughter” of Indian males. The author of this bogus “study” simply pulled that assertion out of thin air. (There were isolated “slaughters” during conflicts of both Europeans and Indians. And many Indian on Indian and European on European slaughters as well too.) Later European females started arriving too, which further added to the mix. One sees the same thing in Anglo-North America on a smaller scale since the Indian population here was miniscule (about 2 million in all of what is now the vast U.S. and Canada that today supports nearly 350million people). A huge proportion of the U.S. white population with family that goes back many generations has Indian blood. In my case, two of my great-great grandmothers were Chickasaw. Such intermarriage was common in the backwoods and no-one was killed for it to happen. And there were plenty of cases of Indian and especially mixed-Indian males with white wives.)
We need a clearinghouse with a staff of scholars to constantly analyze and challenge this kind of endless inflammatory and baseless hate propaganda (sometimes under guise of “legitimate” scholarship) directed against whites, that has become so “chic”. An “anti-defamation league” if you will. Just like the ADL which must constantly be on the look out for and challenge the endless inflammatory bogus blood libels directed against Jews.
Posted by at 3:28 PM on March 23
It’s amazing how our leaders chant about how great it is for whites to mate with blacks. We all know that when you mate a 100 IQ with a 85 or less IQ you have a more intellignet human, just as we all know, if you mate a thirty million dollar race horse with a plow horse you get a bettet race horse.
Posted by at 5:28 PM on March 23
Explaining the fate of native males when the Europeans arrived, Professor Luiz-Linares said: “It is a very sad and terrible historical fact, they were basically annihilated.
Really? Did they do mtDNA and Y-Chromosome comparisons? Or are the good historians making a hypothesis, and cherry-picking evidence that fits the aforementioned hypothesis?
The native women, as happens with women everywhere, would naturally gravitate to men who had access to resources, food, wealth, power — ie. the new conquerors, rather than the defeated ones. We saw the same thing in Germany and Japan after WW2. And everywhere else. - voter
Not much more I can say on the matter, “voter” hit the proverbial nail on the head.
I think this “article” should be treated with the same kind of scorn as those “persons” promoting the belief that packs of whites (with the odd black helper) roamed around the disease-ridden jungles of West-Africa looking for slaves, and the Native Americans were “one with the wild”.
Posted by Obscuratus at 4:36 AM on March 24
It’s proably true that the Andelusian Spaniards killed the native men and reproduced with native women, and with the black slaves they brought over to the Americas in such large numbers. One source said that only 3% of the Africans sold into slavery came to North America. The rest, the other 97% went elsewhere, like to Latin America and Moslem countries. Saudi Arabians were importing blacks from Africa as recently as the ’70s. They possibly still are.
The Spaniards who did most of the conquering and rampaging in the colonies were criminals from Andalusia and Extremadura, the two most Moorish influenced parts of Spain.
Posted by at 7:35 PM on March 25
“The Spaniards who did most of the conquering and rampaging in the colonies were criminals from Andalusia and Extremadura, the two most Moorish influenced parts of Spain.”
Posted by at 7:35 PM on March 25
A very astute and highly pertinent observation indeed, and one I must remember in future when dealing with those extreme Marxist anti-white race hate mongerers.
Posted by A Swain at 12:31 AM on March 27
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3369102968312745410
The above site has the entire movie (unlike YouTube) with English subtitles.
Posted by at 12:59 AM on March 29
“The rest, the other 97% went elsewhere, like to Latin America and Moslem countries.”
17 million black slaves were marched across the Sahara during the many centuries of the North African Muslim slave trade (that continues to a certain degree even today).
By comparison an estimated 11 million black slaves (purchased from black African slave traders along the coast, since the Europeans dared not go ashore of Africa during that period due to malaria and other tropical diseases for which they had no immunity), were taken across the Atlantic. Only 200,000 were brought to North America. The bulk were taken to Brazil under the Portuguese.
And no, the Indian men were not killed by the Spaniards or Portuguese, in any widespread systematic fashion. The historical records are clear on that.
Please also note there was the so-called “Black Legends” spread by the British and French as a form of anti-Spanish propaganda that made a lot of untrue accusations of atrocities against the Indians.
Of course there were atrocities, but rather isolated. Not normal practice. And much less than what was committed by the Mayas, the Aztecs, the Incas,….
Posted by at 11:37 PM on March 30
