Photo courtesy of buzznigeria.com
Updated Post: June 13, 2017
Updated Post: December 18, 2018
There’s an article that I came across yesterday that lists one of it’s subtitles (The ancestors of Yoruba people provided the largest contribution of genes from Africa to modern Americans) that I will touch on some more about as I finish briefly sharing my “Yoruba” story with y’all that relates to the article. This article (The ancestors of Yoruba people provided the largest contribution of genes from Africa to modern Americans) came out over a year ago, despite I just came across this article yesterday so I decided to share the information with y’all, because it was intriguing too me but than again I wasn’t surprise by the (Yoruba) Ancestresses and Ancestors findings in North America.
Now that I’ve pointed that out, years ago the (Yoruba) ethnic group was the first Afurakani/Afuraitkaitnit (Africa) ethnic group that I became attracted and spiritually connected to as I was trying to find out more about the Yoruba people, language, “IFA religion” and culture. It also would be a coincidence that my now ex-fiancé would be Yoruba too which was something I could not foresee occurring. LOL !
Which strongly convinces me with this new information I learn about the Yoruba people yesterday, that it is possible that my Afurakani/Afuraitkaitnit (Africa) Ancestresses or Ancestors were of Yoruba descent. But at some point though I will know for sure as I take my African ancestry DNA test (at a later time). I will come back and post an updated post and share with y’all what my results was. I think my Afurakani/Afuraitkaitnit (Africa) Ancestresses and Ancestors are trying to tell me something. 🙂
Lastly then there was my first name Kolonta, pronounced Ko-lon-ta which is West Afurakani/Afuraitkaitnit (African), as I found out some time before and that my name means something in Liberia, but the meaning escapes me now because it has been years ago since I came across the meaning and I can’t put my hands on the information now. But sometime ago, I was told my first name Kolonta by a guy who was Yoruba I once talk too. That my name is also Yoruba and the meanings he gave me were interesting and intriguing and tickle me some I might add too.
Here are some meanings of my name Kolonta in Yoruba as follow:
In Yoruba, a word can mean 5 or more things, it depends on how you pronounce it.
Kolonta~ she has no sales
Kolonta~she didn’t go out
Kolonta~ no wares to sell
Kolonta~ kolonta’ no bullet
Kolonta~carry to sell
* Ko-lon-ta (Kolonta) is pronounced in Yoruba just like I pronounce it and how my late Maternal grandmother who name me pronounced it as well; and how it should be pronounced correctly. Which consist of three syllables Ko-lon-ta (Kolonta) but it is spelled differently in Yoruba though.
Most people like to use the reference or misnomer “African Slave trade.”
* Most people like to use the reference or misnomer “African Slave trade.” However African people did not participate in the trading or enslaving of their people, this was strictly and exclusively a European/Eurasian (Europe/Asia) business in the exploitation and trading of African people to other Non-African people for profit and property.
Did We Sell Each Other Into Slavery: Misconceptions About the African Involvement in the Slave Trade
There are many misconceptions about African history and nowhere is this more true than the topic of the slave trade. Very often I see comments by people who argue that Africans sold each other into slavery. There is some element of truth to this, but to speak of the slave trade solely as Africans selling each other t is a gross oversimplification of what was a complex historical event. This also seems to be an attempt to shift the burden of the slave trade on the victims of that very trade. In How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, Walter Rodney mentions how the white author of a book on the slave trade admitted that he was encouraged by other scholars to blame the slave trade solely on the Africans. This narrative helps to lessen European guilt by making Africans seem just as or even more guilty of being involved in the slave trade. This piece is not an attempt to ignore the African role in the slave trade or to absolve those that were involved, but to to provide a more complete picture of the African involvement in slave trade.
In the first place, the Portuguese initiated what eventually became the Trans-Atlantic slave trade mainly through slave raids along the coasts of Africa. The first of these raids came in 1444 and was led by Lançarote de Freitas. The problem with raiding for slaves was that it was extremely dangerous. For instance, the slave trader Nuno Tristão was killed during an ambush. Slave raiding proved to be an extremely dangerous way to obtain slaves, but buying slaves was much safer and took less effort on the part of the Europeans. Therefore, the first phase of the slave trade began not with a trade, but with a series of raids. This point is especially important because although the slave trade was on some levels based on a partnership between European buyers and African traders, the slave trade did not begin as such.
Moreover, the partnership between the traders and buyers was an uneasy one. The European slave traders often betrayed those who supplied them with slaves. A famous case of this was the African slave trader Daaga who was tricked and captured by slave traders. He was taken to Trinidad where he would eventually lead a mutiny. Another example is given by Anne Bailey in her book African Voices in the Atlantic Slave Trade. She mentions the story of Chief Ndorkutsu who had been providing captives to the European traders. Eventually some of the Ndorkutsu’s own relatives were tricked into boarding a slave ship and then taken as slaves to Cuba. In some cases, such as that of Madam Tinubu in Nigeria and Afonso of the Kongo Kingdom, those Africans that initially gave African captives to the Europeans came to resist the slave trade. Tinubu had a change of heart when she realized how inhumanely the slaves were treated. Afonso was almost assassinated by the Portuguese after he demanded an end to the slave trade in his kingdom.
Typically wars in West Africa were relatively short affairs that left a small number of causalities. The introduction of European weapons made these wars more drawn out and destructive affairs. Moreover, the only way Africans could acquire these firearms was through the trade of slaves. A king of Dahomey once requested that Europeans establish a firearms factory in his nation, but this request went ignored. Firearms became necessary for African nations to defend themselves both from African rivals as well as from European intrusion, but the only way to acquire these weapons was through the slave trade. This situation only benefited the competing European powers that were able to play Africans against each other.
Finally, the slave trade left a negative legacy on both sides of the Atlantic. The Africans that were brought to the Americas were forced to labor as slaves, while enduring some of the most inhumane treatment imaginable. Those who remained, however, were left to mourn the lost of their friends and relatives that were taken away. A handful of African traders and rulers may have gained some wealth from the slave trade, but overall it was a very negative event for Africa. There were African kingdoms, such as the Kongo Kingdom, that eventually fell due to the onslaught brought about by the slave trade. We often think of the negative impact that the slave trade had on those who were captured, but the slave trade was also devastating for those who escaped being captured as well.
Some Africans did play a role in the slave trade and the trade could not have been as large as it was without cooperation from Africans. With that being said, I think many people who have not properly studied the slave trade have a tendency to overstate how involved Africans were in a misguided attempt to shift the blame of the slave trade on Africans. ~Dwayne Wong (Omowale), May 3, 2016
Some Excerpts from the book “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, Walter Rodney ” and chapter 4.1 (The European Slave Trade as a Basic Factor in African
To discuss trade between Africans and Europeans in the four centuries
before colonial rule is virtually to discuss slave trade. Strictly speaking,
the African only became a slave when he reached a society where he
worked as a slave. Before that, he was first a free man and then a
captive. Nevertheless, it is acceptable to talk about the trade in slaves to
refer to the shipment of captives from Africa to various other parts of
the world where they were to live and work as the property of
Europeans. The title of this section is deliberately chosen to call
attention to the fact that the shipments were all by Europeans to markets
controlled by Europeans, and this was in the interest of European
capitalism and nothing else. In East Africa and the Sudan, many
Africans were taken by Arabs and were sold to Arab buyers. This is
known (in European books) as the ‘Arab Slave Trade’. Therefore, let it
be clear that when Europeans shipped Africans to European buyers it
was the ‘European Slave trade’ from Africa.
Undoubtedly, with few exceptions such as Hawkins, European buyers
purchased African captives on the coasts of Africa and the transaction
between themselves and Africans was a form of trade. It is also true that
very often a captive was sold and resold as he made his way from the
interior to the port of embarkation — and that too was form of trade.
However, on the whole, the process by which captives were obtained on
African soil was not trade at all. It was through warfare, trickery,
banditry and kidnapping. When one tries to measure the effect of
European slave trading on the African continent, it is very essential to
realise that one is measuring the effect of social violence rather than
trade in any normal sense of the word.
Many things remain uncertain about the slave trade and its
consequences for Africa, but the general picture of destructiveness is
clear, and that destructiveness can be shown to be the logical
consequence of the manner of recruitment of captives in Africa. One of
the uncertainties concerns the basic question of how many Africans
were imported. This has long been an object of speculation, with
estimates ranging from a few millions to over one hundred million. A
recent study has suggested a figure of about ten million Africans landed
alive in the Americas, the Atlantic islands and Europe. Because it is a
low figure, it is already being used by European scholars who are
apologists for the capitalist system and its long record of brutality in
Europe and abroad. In order to white-wash the European slave trade,
they find it convenient to start by minimising the numbers concerned.
The truth is that any figure of Africans imported into the Americas
which is narrowly based on the surviving records is bound to be low,
because there were so many people at the time who had a vested
interest in smuggling slaves (and withholding data). Nevertheless, if the
low figure of ten million was accepted as a basis for evaluating the
impact of slaving on Africa as a whole, the conclusions that could
legitimately be drawn would confound those who attempt to make light
of the experience of the rape of Africans from 1445 to 1870.
On any basic figure of Africans landed alive in the Americas, one
would have to make several extensions — starting with a calculation to
cover mortality in transhipment. The Atlantic crossing or ‘Middle
Passage’, as it was called by European slavers, was notorious for the
number of deaths incurred, averaging in the vicinity of 15% to 20%.
There were also numerous deaths in Africa between time of capture and
time of embarkation, especially in cases where captives had to travel
hundreds of miles to the coast. Most important of all (given that warfare
was the principal means of obtaining captives) it is necessary to make
some estimate as to the number of people killed and injured so as to
extract the millions who were taken alive and sound. The resultant
figure would be many times the millions landed alive outside of Africa,
and it is that figure which represents the number of Africans directly
removed from the population and labour force of Africa because of the
establishment of slave production by Europeans.
The slave trade on the Indian Ocean has been called the ‘East African slave trade’ and the ‘Arab slave trade’ for so long that it hides the extent to which it was
also a European slave trade. When the slave trade from East Africa was
at its height in the 18th century and in the early 19th century, the
destination of most captives was the European-owned plantation
economies of Mauritius, Réunion and Seychelles-as well as the
Americas, via the Jape of Good Hope. Resides, Africans labouring as
slaves in certain Arab countries in the 18th and 19th centuries were all
ultimately serving the European capitalist system which set up a
demand for slave-grown products, such as the cloves grown —
Zanzibar under the supervision of Arab masters.
Many African rulers acquiesced in the European slave trade for what they
considered to be reasons of self-interest, but on no scale of rationality
could the outflow of population be measured as being anything but
disastrous for African societies.
African economic activity was affected both directly and indirectly by
population loss. For instance, when the inhabitants of a given area were
reduced below a certain number in an environment where tsetse fly was
present, the remaining few had to abandon the area.
In effect, enslavement was causing these people to lose their battle to tame and
harness nature — a battle which is at the basis of development.
Violence also meant insecurity. The opportunity presented by European
slave dealers became the major (though not the only) stimulus for a
great deal of social violence between different African communities and
within any given community. It took the form more of raiding and
kidnapping than of regular warfare, and that fact increased the element
of fear and uncertainty.
Both openly and by implication, all the European powers n the 19th
century indicated their awareness of the fact that the activities
connected with producing captives were inconsistent with other
economic pursuits. That was the time when Britain in particular wanted
Africans to collect palm produce and rubber and to grow agricultural
crops for export in place of slaves; and it was clear that slave-raiding
was violently conflicting with that objective in Western, Eastern and
Central Africa. Long before that date, Europeans accepted that fact
when their self-interest was involved. For example, in the 17th century,
the Portuguese and Dutch actually discouraged slave trade on the ‘Gold
Coast’ for they recognised that it could be incompatible with gold trade.
However, by the end of that century, gold had been discovered in
Brazil, and the importance of gold supplies from Africa was lessened.
Within the total Atlantic pattern, African slaves became more important
than gold, and Brazilian gold was offered for African captives at
Whydah (Dahomey) and Accra. At that point, slaving began undermining the ‘Gold Coast’ economy and destroying the gold trade. Slave-raiding and kidnapping made it unsafe to mine and to travel with gold; and raiding for captives proved more profitable than gold-mining.
One European on the scene noted that ‘as one fortunate marauding
makes a native rich in a day, they therefore exert themselves rather in
war, robbery and plunder than in their old business of digging and
The above changeover from gold-mining to slave-raiding took place
within a period of a few years between 1700 and 1710, when the ‘Gold
Coast’ came to supply about 5,000 to 6,000 captives per year. By the
end of the 18th century, a much smaller number of captives were
exported from the ‘Go1d Coast’, but the damage had already been done.
It is worth noting that Europeans sought out different parts of West and
Central Africa at different times to play the role of major suppliers of
slaves to the Americas. This meant that virtually every section of the
long western coastline between the Senegal and Cunene rivers had at
least a few years experience of intensive trade in slaves — with all its
consequences. Besides, in the history of Eastern Nigeria, the Congo,
Northern Angola and Dahomey, there were periods extending over
decades when exports remained at an average of many thousands per
year. Most of those areas were also relatively highly developed within
the African context. They were lead rig forces inside Africa, whose
energies would otherwise have gone towards their own selfimprovement
and the betterment of the continent as a whole.
The changeover to warlike activities and kidnapping must have affected
all branches of economic activity, and agriculture in particular.
Occasionally, in certain localities food production was increased to provide supplies for slave ships, but the overall consequence of slaving on agricultural activities in Western, Eastern and Central Africa were negative. Labour was drawn off from agriculture and conditions became unsettled. Dahomey, which in the 16th century was known for exporting food to parts of what is now Togo, was suffering from famines in the 19th century.
The present generation of Africans will readily recall that in the colonial period when able-bodied men left their homes as migrant labourers that upset the farming routine in the home districts and often caused famines. Slave trading after all, meant migration of labour in a manner one hundred times more brutal and
One tactic that is now being employed by certain European (including
American) scholars is to say that the European slave trade was
undoubtedly a moral evil, but it was economically good for Africa.
Here attention will be drawn only very briefly to a few of those
arguments to indicate how ridiculous they can be. One that receives
much emphasis that African rulers and other persons obtained Europe
commodities in exchange for their captives, and this was how Africans
gained ‘wealth’. This suggestion fails to take into account the fact that
several European imports were competing with and strangling African
products; it fails to take into account the fact that none of the long list of
European articles were of the type which entered into the productive
process, but were rather items to be rapidly consumed or stowed away
uselessly; and it incredibly overlooks the fact that the majority of the
imports were of the worst quality even as consumer goods — cheap gin,
cheap gunpowder, pots and kettles full of holes, beads, and other assorted rubbish.
Following from the above, it is suggested that certain African kingdoms
grew strong economically and politically a consequence of the trade
with Europeans. The greatest of the West African kingdoms, such as
Oyo, Benin, Dahomey and Asante are cited as examples. Oyo and
Benin were great, before making contact with Europeans, and while
both Dahomey and Asante grew stronger during the period of the
European slave trade, the roots of their achievements went back to
much earlier years. Furthermore — and this is a major fallacy in the
argument of the slave trade apologists — the fact that a given African
state grew politically more powerful at the same time as it engaged in
selling captives to Europeans is not automatically to be attributed to the
credit of the trade in slaves. A cholera epidemic may kill thousands in a
country and yet the population increases. The increase obviously came
about in spite of and not because of the cholera. This simple logic
escapes those who speak about the European slave trade benefitting
Africa. The destructive tendency of slave trading can be clearly
established; and, wherever a state seemingly progressed in the epoch of
slave trading, the conclusion is simply that it did so in spite of the
adverse effects of a process that was more damaging than cholera. This
is the picture that emerges from a detailed study of Dahomey, for
instance, and in the final analysis although Dahomey did its best to
expand politically and militarily while still tied to slave trade, that form
of economic activity seriously undermined its economic base and left it
much worse off.
But, perhaps a slightly more subtle version of the same argument
requires a reply: namely, the argument that Africa gained because in the
process of slave trading new food crops were acquired from the
American continent and these became staples in Africa. The crops in
question are maize and cassava, which became staples in Africa late in
the 19th century and in the present century. But the spread of food crops
is one of the most common phenomena in human history. Most crops
originated in only one of the continents, and then social contact caused
their transfer to other parts of the world. Trading in slaves has no
special bearing on whether crops spread-the simplest forms of trade
would have achieved the same result. Today, the Italians have (hard)
wheat foods like spaghetti and macaroni as their staple, while most
Europeans use the potato. The Italians took the idea of the spaghetti
type foods from the Chinese noodle after Marco Polo returned from
travels there, while Europe adopted the potato from American Indians.
In neither case were Europeans enslaved before they could receive a
benefit that was the logical heritage of all mankind, but Africans are to
be told that the European slave trade developed us by bringing us maize
All of the above points are taken from books and articles published
recently, as the fruit of research in major British and American
Universities. They are probably not the commonest views even among
European bourgeois scholars, but they are representative of a growing
trend that seems likely to become the new accepted orthodoxy in
metropolitan capitalist countries; and this significantly coincides with
Europe’s struggle against the further decolonization of Africa
economically and mentally. In one sense, it is preferable to ignore such
rubbish and isolate our youth from its insults; but unfortunately one of
the aspects of current African underdevelopment is that the capitalist
publishers and bourgeois scholars dominate the scene and help mould
opinions the world over. It is for that reason that writing of the type
which justifies the trade in slaves has to be exposed as racist bourgeois
propaganda, having no connection with reality or logic. It is a question
not merely of history but of present day liberation struggle in Africa.
http://abahlali.org/files/3295358-walter-rodney.pdf (How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, Walter Rodney)
Now some excerpts from the article entitled:
America IS a melting pot: Scientists map genetic fingerprint of colonisation in the US – and reveal ‘surprising’ complexity
By ELLIE ZOLFAGHARIFARD FOR
March 24, 2015
The ancestors of current-day Yoruba people from West Africa – which is one of the largest African ethnic groups – provided the largest contribution of genes from Africa to all current-day American populations.
‘We can see the huge genetic impact that the slave trade had on American populations and our data match historical records’, said study author Dr Garrett Hellenthal from the UCL Genetics Institute,
‘The majority of African Americans have ancestry similar to the Yoruba people in West Africa, confirming that most African slaves came from this region.
‘In areas of the Americas historically under Spanish rule, populations also have ancestry related to what is now Senegal and Gambia. Records show that around a third of the slaves sent to Spanish America in the 17th Century came from this region, and we can see the genetic evidence of this in modern Americans really clearly.’
Researchers also found that the proportion of African ancestry varied across the continent, from virtually zero in the Maya people from Mexico to 87 per cent in current-day Barbados.
‘The differences in European ancestry between the Caribbean islands and mainland American population that we found were also previously unknown.
‘It is likely that these differences reflect different patterns of migration between the Caribbean and mainland America.
‘These results show just how powerful a genetic approach can be when it comes to uncovering hidden patterns of ancestry,’ added Professor Capelli.
Photo courtesy of Paul Almasy/CORBIS & dailymail.co.uk
photo of a young Yoruba woman.
Some additional information:
Caribbean populations show a higher African component than Southern American ones, consistent with historical records that documented a larger number of slaves in the Caribbean Islands 22, 23.
In all groups, the Yorubans from West Africa are the largest contributor, confirming this region as the major component of African slaves1, 2, 4. However, our fine-scale analysis suggests additional genetic contributions from populations from other parts of Africa, with contributions from particular groups sampled in Senegambia (the Mandenka), Southern (South African Bantu language speakers) and Eastern Africa (Kenyan Bantu language speakers) identified in 6 out of 12 populations we investigated. Historical reports indicate that Senegambia and South-Eastern Africa contributed an average of 6 and 4% of all disembarked slaves to the Americas (totalling several hundreds of thousands individuals), respectively, with ethnic groups from Senegal and Mozambique being among the 10 most prominent according to slavery documentation22. In addition, more than 30% of the total slaves arriving in mainland Spanish America up to the 1630s came from Senegambia23, and we accordingly find that the relative contribution from the Mandenka is higher in all areas historically under the Spanish rule (Fig. 4).
“The team, which also included researchers from UCL (University College London) and the Universita’ del Sacro Cuore of Rome, analyzed more than 4,000 previously collected DNA samples from 64 different populations, covering multiple locations in Europe, Africa and the Americas. Since migration has generally flowed from Africa and Europe to the Americas over the last few hundred years, the team compared the ‘donor’ African and European populations with ‘recipient’ American populations to track where the ancestors of current-day North and South Americans came from.
‘We found that the genetic profile of Americans is much more complex than previously thought,’ said study leader Professor Cristian Capelli from the Department of Zoology at Oxford University.”
“There is an African proverb “when two brothers fight a stranger reaps the harvest’ The Kiriji Wars of the Yoruba were in a nutshell wars againsts invaders, which spiralled into wars between brothers. They are said to have lasted almost a whole century. The effects of those wars are not widely known or perhaps have never been quantified . But here is one glaring pointer.”
The Yoruba people of Western Nigeria are one of the largest ethnic groups in Africa.
“The Yoruba people of Western Nigeria approximately 35 million people occupying the south-western parts of Nigeria. While their primary concentration is in Nigeria, they are also found in other West African countries and throughout the entire world as well. They constitute what could be described as the largest concentration of Africans who live and work in the Diaspora and their descendants are spread all over the world.”
“Numbering about 35 million in total, the Yoruba is one of the largest ethnic groups south of the Sahara Desert. They constitute about 21% of Nigeria’s total population, making them one of the largest ethnic groups in Nigeria. Contrary to what many people believe, the Yoruba are, in fact, not a single ethnic group. In a sharp contrast, they are a collection of diverse people who are bound together by a common language, culture and history. According to the Yoruba Mythology, it is believed that they descended from an area called Odua. Uncounted numbers of Yorubas were carried to the Caribbean and the Americas during slave trade period. In 1893, the Yoruba Kingdom became part of the British Protectorate.”
Afu – flesh; house; flesh of Ra/Rait
Afu Ra and Afu Rait – title of Ra, title of Rait
Kaka – high land
Ka – high land; land
Ofi – house, home; also used for sanctuary/temple (Abosomfie)
Afo – animal carcass; flesh; that which is put on, discarded and taken up again
Afuo (Afur) – land that is fertile; farmland; plantation; land with vibrant energy moving through it
fura – to put on
afra – to become intermixed; comingled
fram – to be on fire, to burn, blaze; flame, fire; Afram and Afra (Afura and Afurait)
Koko – hill, mountain; high land
Kua – farm (fertile land)
Afurakani – African; male individual of the land of the Creator (Afuraka)
Afuraitkaitnit – African; female individual of the land of the Creatress (Afuraitkait)
Pronunciation key: (note: The name of the Creatress, Rait is also spelled Rat)
Afuraka (Ah’-foo rah-kah’)
Afuraitkait (Ah’-foo rah’-ette kah’-ette) also Afuratkat (Ah’-foo raht-kaht’)
Afurakanu (Ah’-foo rah-kah’ noo)
Afuraitkaitnut (Ah’-foo rah’-ette kah’-ette noot) also
Afuratkatnut (Ah’-foo raht-kaht’ noot)
Afurakani (Ah’-foo rah-kah’ nee)
Afuraitkaitnit (Ah’-foo rah’-ette kah’-ette neet) also
Afuratkatnit (Ah’-foo raht-kaht’ neet)
Finally, it must be clearly understood that only Black people are and can be referred to as Afurakanu/Afuraitkaitnut and Afurakani/Afuraitkaitnit.
Our identity is rooted in our biology, our biological/physical and spiritual connection to the original Ka/Kait, our spiritual connection to Afu Ra and Afu Rait as well as our reincarnation through specific blood-circles. This distinguishes us from all other groups. Black people, wherever we are found in the world are Afurakanu/Afuraitkaitnut.
The Ntoro (Ntr/God) Ra is the Creator of the Universe, while the Ntorot (Ntrt/Goddess) Rait is the Creatress of the Universe. Ra uses the Aten (Sun) as a physical transmitter of His spiritual energy. This is why He is often misnomered the ‘Sun God’. However, Ra and Rait actually created the Aten (Sun).
Ra is the name of the God Who is the Creator of the World. Rait is the name of the Goddess Who is the Creatress of the World. Ra and Rait are Two Halves of a Whole. Two sides of One coin. That Whole, that coin, is the Great Spirit of the Supreme Being. Ra/Rait, together, are the Great Spirit Who brought into being all of Creation. They are the Divine Living Energy moving throughout all that exists. Just as solar energy and heat move throughout the Earth, the atmosphere of Earth, throughout your body, throughout the bodies of plants, animals, minerals, so does the Great Spirit, Ra/Rait, move throughout, animate, give life to, the planets, Sun, Moon, stars, plants, animals, humans, the Black Substance of Space—all that exists. Fundamentally, the Supreme Being’s Creative Spirit, Creative Power, is Who we call Ra and Rait.
http://odwirafo.com/KUKUU-TUNTUM_The_Ancestral_Jurisdiction_Nhoma.pdf(KUKUU-TUNTUM The Ancestral Jurisdiction) by ODWIRAFO KWESI RA NEHEM PTAH AKHAN (page 8)
www.odwirafo.com/Tua-Ra_torah.pdf (NOTE ON ‘TUA RA’ BEING THE ORIGIN OF THE TERM ‘TORAH’) by ODWIRAFO KWESI RA NEHEM PTAH AKHAN (page 2)
https://youtu.be/51fQt8KNKvE (ONIPA: The Creation of the Afurakani/Afuraitkaitnit (African) Human Being)
https://youtu.be/ZaZX04SPfKI (NTORO: Origin and Meaning of the Term ‘NTR’ (Deity) Defined in Ancient Kamit and Akan Culture)
http://dailym.ai/1EEvWLq (The complex ancestry of Americans revealed)
https://oloolutof.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/ikeji-warriors-ijesaekitiparapo-army-and-kiriji-war-triumph/(IKEJI WARRIORS, IJESA/EKITIPARAPO ARMY AND KIRIJI WAR TRIUMPH, by OLOOLUTOF SEPTEMBER 1, 2012)
http://buzznigeria.com/yoruba-people/ (Dec 12, 2013)
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150324/ncomms7596/full/ncomms7596.html (Unravelling the hidden ancestry of American admixed populations, Received November 21, 2014 and Published 24 March 24, 2015)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150324132224.htm (University of Oxford, March 24, 2015)
https://youtu.be/2i_spMsJa0E(AFURAKA/AFURAITKAIT – The Origin of the term ‘Africa’)
http://odwirafo.com/AFURAKA-AFURAITKAIT_The_Origin_of_the_Term_Africa.pdf(AFURAKA/AFURAITKAIT THE ORIGIN OF THE TERM ‘AFRICA’) by ODWIRAFO KWESI RA NEHEM PTAH AKHAN (Pages 10 & 13)