>My father is
>from Nigeria (west Africa)
Whaddaya know! So's mine. And moms, in fact, so that makes me mixed with Ikinwa Yoruba and Ilashe Yoruba!

, so
>I believe that most likely
>he is a pure African.
Don't be so certain! Where are his parents from? If they're from two different towns, then he is also...mixed!

>But my mom is different.
>She is Jamaican and there
>is a lot more history
>than meets the eye. At
>first glance, she is a
>short light-skinned woman with black
>hair. But her last name
>is Phinn. It's supposed to
>be F-I-N-N, but it was
>changed by my grandfather. Finn
>is a notoriously IRISH name.
>So when people see the
>name Phinn and not my
>mother, they say, OH! white
>woman with red hair and
>blue eyes.

I'm not sure why people would do this. For instance, the names Garrick, O'Reilly, Lipson or Walker aren't very racially specific, are they?
Most people whose ancestors were enslaved carry European--whether English, Spanish, French or whatever--surnames due to the naming convention of the time.

It's not so.
>They don't know that she's
>black and her impeccable speech
>throws them off.

Because Black people can't speak "impeccable" English?

>So, with this in
>mind, I could have ancestors
>from Sudan, Congo, Liberia, and
>almost anywhere else in Africa.

Actually, its fairly unlikely that your ancestry is Eastern or Central African. Many Jamaicans, as a matter of fact, can trace their ancestry to the Asante/Ashanti ethnic group in modern-day Ghana. By the way, if anybody's family has old-time roots in Virginia, it's very, very likely that your ancestors were Igbos.

>They found a
>particualr tribe of Africans that
>claimed to be the real
>Jews.

I try and advise people to avoid the use of the word "tribe." It has no anthropological meaning, and it only serves as a way for Europeans to classify other ethnicities as less civilized. I'm a person of Yoruba descent. My particular ethnic group formed their present city-states before England, France or Spain even existed. I am not a member of a "tribe", whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean.
>
>Only an estimated 10% of the
>Jerusalem population was said to
>possess the kohenim gene and
>an astounding 90% of the
>African tribe had the gene.
>These people were the real
>Jews. So that meant that
>a white boy in Jerusalem
>had more in common with
>an African boy than with
>most of his neighbors.

The gene you're talking about is found in the Jewish priesthood. Not carrying the gene does not mean that you're not a "real" Jew, though I agree with your central point. Most people who claim Jewish heritage and religion today are converts, and the vast majority are only slightly Jewish in genetic heritage; they are mostly European.


A-F-R-I-C-A! /Puerto Rico, Haiti and JA! /New York and Cali,/ F-L-A! Yo, it ain't bout where you stay/It's bout the motherland!