The Only Black Samurai In Feudal Japan

“There is only one of you in all of time, this expression is unique.” —Martha Graham, The Life and Work of Martha Graham

In A Nutshell

His name was Yasuke, and he was the first and only black samurai. Brought to Japan by a Jesuit missionary, this African slave eventually ended up serving the famous warlord Oda Nobunaga. Yasuke even did battle with Nobunaga’s enemies, proving his worth as a samurai warrior.

The Whole Bushel

Thanks to countless stories of their honor and heroism, the samurai are perhaps the most legendary warriors in history. Fans of Japanese history no doubt recognize names like Miyamoto Musashi and Tokugawa Ieyasu, but what about the coolest samurai to ever don a kabuto? Though his time as a warrior was brief, the man named Yasuke has a special place in Japanese history as the first and only black samurai.

The legend of Yasuke sounds like the plot to Quentin Tarantino’s next movie. Taken from his home somewhere in central or western Africa, Yasuke was sold to a Jesuit priest by the name of Alessandro Valignano. In 1579, Father Valignano went on a missionary trip to Japan, taking Yasuke along for help, and when the slave arrived in the Land of the Rising Sun, he caused quite a stir. After all, it’s said Yasuke stood over 2 meters (6 ft) tall, and he stood out a little bit among the homogeneous Japanese population.

Several years later, word of the newcomer reached Oda Nobunaga, a powerful figure who was responsible for the eventual unification of Japan. Curious to meet this celebrity, Nobunaga invited Valignano and Yasuke to visit him in 1581. When the warlord finally met the 26- or 27-year-old slave, he was quite impressed by his looks and stature. Later, he even claimed Yasuke was stronger than 10 men. The two were even able to converse, as Yasuke had learned quite a bit of Japanese during the past few years. However, Nobunaga wasn’t quite convinced that Yasuke’s skin color was genuine and had him stripped and washed just to make sure. When his servants failed to scrub away Yasuke’s blackness, Oda declared Yasuke would be his vassal and dubbed him with the Japanese name we all know him by today.

As Nobunaga’s retainer, Yasuke found more freedom than he’d had in years. Technically, he was still a servant, but now he was eating at a table with his peers and earning money for his work. Sometimes he even ate with Nobunaga himself, something that never would’ve happened with a European master. However, his service to Nobunaga didn’t last very long. Eventually, the warlord was betrayed by one his best generals, a man by the name of Akechi Mitsuhide. After Nobunaga’s death, Yasuke joined his son, Oda Nobutada and helped defend a castle against Mitsuhide’s forces. Unfortunately, the fortress was eventually overrun, and Yasuke had to surrender his katana to the enemy. However, Mitsuhide didn’t consider this “beast” to be a real samurai. Instead of giving him a warrior’s death, he sent him to a Jesuit church in Kyoto . . . where Yasuke mysteriously disappears. No one knows what happened next to the African samurai, but perhaps he spent the rest of his days wandering Japan as a black ronin, fighting villains and righting wrongs. (Sure, it probably didn’t happen that way, but it’d make a great manga.)

Show Me The Proof

On Military Science, by Mikaeel D. Shabazz Muhammad
Ninja Attack!: True Tales of Assassins, Samurai, and Outlaws, by Hiroko Yoda, Matt Alt
USMC: The Legend of Yasuke

  • Hillyard

    Thanks to huge amounts of bullshit the samurai are perhaps the overrated warriors in history.
    This does sound like a good Q.T. movie.

    • percynjpn

      You’re right about the overrated part.

    • Gerop Splydon

      Samurai aren’t really overrated, it’s the ninjas that are super overrated.

  • Nice one. How did Hollywood miss this?

    • Nathaniel A.

      Give it time… Give it time…

    • Aziz

      I wonder if they’ll ever try to make something similar to Afro Samurai.

      • TheTimmynator

        Cat master!

    • Bruce Lee R

      hollywood doesnt want to promote black men in any positive or righteous/heroic fashion. They instead want to destroy the image.

    • Jim Tiberius

      waiting for a time when they can use blackface and not have the whole internet turn on them

    • Pablo Lopez

      sounds like the movie….Umm with rza iron fist

  • percynjpn

    I knew samurai were tough, but I never knew they dined on wood.

    • Nolan Moore

      Heh, nice catch. I’ll see what I can do about that.

      • percynjpn

        Anyway, it’s an interesting article.

      • Joseph

        You should leave it that way. It’s pretty funny! It was a good article too.

    • Joseph

      That’s what she said!

  • Crazy Mass is most effective products for weight gaining and it helps to increase or boost the body muscles in very short span of time. So, use this supplement of crazy mass if you want to grow the muscles.

  • RL Willard
    • Who Cares

      The only one with enough historical evidence. At least going by your link’s information.

    • Dómari

      Only one not made up by Afrocentrists grasping for straws. According to the Out-of-Africa theory, Asians, including the Japanese, would be descendants of early humans that could be traced back to Africa 100,000+ years ago. Those who left Africa were not modern Negroids, however, who only developed in the last 11,000 or so years.

      The Hofmeyr skull (~36,000 ybp) was found in South Africa, and it shows affinities with Upper Paleolithic Caucasoids, not Negroids. The earliest skeletal evidence for modern Negroids only dates to perhaps 11,000 ybp. That suggests that Caucasoids originally evolved in Africa before migrating to Asia and Europe, where they continued to evolve, and other early humans remained in Sub-Saharan Africa to evolve into Negroids well after the Out-of-Africa migrations.

      The native Japanese population is not Negroid. The modern Mongoloid population certainly was not Negroid as they were Asian long before recorded history, which stretches back thousands of years. The samurai only developed in the medieval period, and they most assuredly were not some throwback population of blacks who never evolved.

      Afrocentrist fantasies are just that—fantasies. Delusional people believe in such nonsense because it suits them, but Europeans, Asians, and Native Americans were not Negroid. The samurai were not black, not even a small minority were black. We know of a single black samurai. We also know of a few European samurai.

      • Grant Alexander
        “For a Samurai to be brave, he must have a bit of Black blood.”
        – Japanese Proverb

        I’m not afraid of research. I know the truth no matter how you try to switch it up. If every race didn’t come from mother Africa which gave birth to modern humanity, then go back to whatever planet you came from.

        • Dómari

          Then you should keep researching.

          The earliest known shared ancestor of modern apes and humans was found in Europe, not Africa:

          As I already said, the Hofmeyr skull and UP Europeans suggest that Caucasoids evolved in Africa as a distinct population before leaving the continent. Negroids are another distinct population that was within Africa, but the proto-Negroid did not appear until about 11,000 ybp. That means modern black Africans were not the “first humans,” and Caucasoids and Mongoloids did not evolve from them. The races diverged thousands, or tens of thousands, of years ago, and evolution continued for each.

          As to that supposed Japanese proverb, the earliest known reference to that nonsense is a medical journal from 1907. It was a white man promoting racist thoughts against the Japanese by claiming that they were a mixture of black blood from Africa and yellow blood from China. He provided no reference for the supposed “proverb,” but that did not stop Afrocentrists from accepting it as truth.

          If you are not afraid of research, then you should know that genetic testing would show if the Japanese were descendants of Africans. The Japanese are genetically related to other East Asians then other Mongoloids. The Japanese, like other Mongoloids, are related to each other first and then to Caucasoids. All races have a similar genetic distance from Negroids, which means they are all more closely related to each other and then distantly related to their Negroid cousins.

          There was no native Negroid Japanese population. Japan was never invaded by Negroids. There was no Negroid Shogun. The samurai were not Negroid, and the Japanese did not say that one must have Negroid blood to be brave.

          If any of that nonsense was anything more than 20th century anti-Japanese racism or Afrocentrist fantasy based thereupon, genetic studies would have shown the connection. Beyond that, there would also be evidence of a relatively modern Negroid population traveling more than 5,000 miles by land from East Africa to Japan. It would have taken quite some time for that journey to occur, and it would have taken a significant population to be able to freely march across Asia before conquering Japan. Odd that only Afrocentrists seem to know about such “history.”

          Tip of the Day: Going to biased Afrocentrist websites created by uneducated ideologues to promote conspiracy theories born from Pan-African political agendas is not “research.”

          • juicy jay

            Jeez, negroid much? Just another white guy trying to prove white supermacy. Race dork.

          • Dómari

            Notice that I posted facts, nothing about white supremacy. Highlighting Afrocentrist lies by pointing to actual anthropological and archaeological evidence is not “trying to prove white supremacy.” If there is someone trying to prove “supremacy,” it is the idiot claiming every civilization and important thing in history was originally black before being stolen.

            Your grand retort is “race dork.” Congratulations on taking the time to prove your own stupidity.

          • Jonathan

            sheesh guy, Dr Cheikh Anta Diop settled your “whites in africa” argument in 1978. His findings debunked the British museum’s assumptions in 1998 iirc. This revisionist crap is old and played out.

          • Dómari

            Shocking that an Afrocentric would point to an Afrocentric only taken seriously by Afrocentrics. Diop tried pushing his bullshit multiple times without mainstream academics taking him seriously. His idiotic theories have been demonstrably false for decades, and the only people who take his rantings seriously are the ill-informed loons that make up the Afrocentric movement. Like so many Afrocentric “scholars,” Afrocentrics love running around trying to claim he was the King of Academia and that all of his bullshit theories have been proven correct … yet that is only in their fevered dreams. The Egyptians were not Negroid, and Caucasoids have been in North Africa for thousands of years. We have surviving mummies. We have genetic studies. We have the fact that they spoke a language tied to the Near East, not the languages spoken by Sub-Saharan Africans. We also know that Egyptian civilization did not spread across North Africa and the desert into West Africa. The Egyptians depicted themselves as being different from actual Negroids (Why if they were all the same?), made reference to the only black dynasty (Why if they were all black?), and, at one point, even said blacks could not enter Egypt (Why if they were the same people?). Afrocentrism is just “black power”/”Pan-African” Marxism masquerading as an academic discipline.

            Diop and other Afrocentrists have also been shown to be wrong on Negroids being the first humans, and they have also been shown to be wrong on “African” being synonymous with Negroid. Again, we know that North African Caucasoids have been there for thousands of years, and they are still there. They are just as “African” as any Negroid, but that does not make them Negroids. We also know that Negroids only came into being after the migrations out of Africa. Non-Negroids share ancestors with Negroids, but the former did not evolve from the latter.

            Also, the Hofmeyr skull has not been “debunked.” It has been compared to African populations, and it shows affinity with Upper Paleolithic Europeans (Cro-Magnon) that existed at the same time. That has not been “debunked,” but it most assuredly is settled. Cro-Magnon were Europeans, not Negroids. Surviving examples have been shown to be proto-Europid over 20,000 years ago.

            The “revisionist crap” comes from people like John Henrik Clarke, Diop, Ben-Jochannan, “Imhotep” Jones, and so on. Clarke never even graduated high school yet was allowed to teach because liberal academics placed ideology over integrity. Jones has no relevant academic qualifications, but he has degrees from diploma mills. Diop had to change his thesis multiple times because real French academics wouldn’t take his bullshit seriously, and even when he finally received his doctorate it was without standard honors showing it was subpar. Ben-Jochannan claimed to have multiple degrees from multiple universities, but no evidence has been found to substantiate his claims with at least two universities openly repudiating the claims. Afrocentrism is nothing but conspiracy rantings from largely uneducated ideologues masquerading as experts to crowds of uneducated twits who will believe anything that fits with what they want to believe. Afrocentric theories are shallow and easily shown to be wrong. For example, any reference to “black” regardless of context must mean “Negroid.” The Egyptians were not Negroids. Their civilization was not born from Negroids, and it did not spread into West and South Africa to actual Negroids.

            But, hey, if the typical Afrocentrist cared about facts, they wouldn’t be an Afrocentrist to begin with.

          • LimtDHWTY

            One should not argue that the Egyptians were not Negroid considering that Egypt consisted of a variety of cultures and tribes that had integrated amongst one another. For example, Suten Khufu, Suten Djoser, Suten Hatshepsut, and various other pharaohs were Negroid. However, the earlier dynasties and various other dynasties prior to the Nubian dynasty consisted of Arab and Caucasian pharaohs.

            It was not purely a “Caucasian” or “Arab” state.

          • Dómari

            There is no reason to believe that Egyptian society “consisted of a variety of cultures and tribes that had integrated amongst one another.” DNA studies have shown that the dynastic Egyptians are most closely related to modern Egyptians, and they further cluster with other North African Caucasoids. The Egyptians depicted themselves as separate from other peoples, which would not have made much sense if Egypt was some multicultural melting pot with various peoples.

            Also, there was a single Nubian dynasty (25th), and they were invaders that ruled for only about a century. Other dynasties are known to have waged war on the Nubians, and they were quite clear on the fact that they were separate peoples. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 18th, and “various other” dynasties were not Negroid. Again, there would have been no reason for the Egyptians to have distinguished themselves from Negroids to the south if the Egyptians had been Negroid or governed by Negroids from the very beginning. That would be like a person 1,000 years from now saying various US presidents prior to Obama were really black without explaining why primary sources made a big deal out of distinguishing the “black guy” from everyone else.

            Finally, North Africans are not Arabs. DNA studies have shown that North Africans cluster together before clustering with West Asians and then Europeans. They are part of the Caucasoid family, but they are distinct. Egyptians are still Egyptians, a distinct population despite claims to the contrary by Afrocentrists who claim the original black (or multiracial) inhabitants were displaced by Arabs. The ancient Egyptians were neither “white” (European) nor “black” (Negroid). The Egyptians were and are a North African people that belong to the broader Caucasoid family.

            As an aside, none of this matters because American blacks—the people promoting such ahistorical myths and conspiracies—descend from West African slaves, not supposed black pharaohs from Egypt or mysterious black shoguns from Japan. Sub-Saharan Africa is not some sort of monolithic culture where all people are related. There are various language groups, cultures, and ethnicities throughout Sub-Saharan Africa. The ancient Egyptians were not Negroids. The ancient Chinese were not Negroids. The Japanese were not Negroids. The indigenous people of the Americas were not Negroids. None of those Afrocentric myths have any basis in reality. Still, even if it was all magically true, none of that would be connected to the descendants of slaves from West Africa, the very people propagating these myths and conspiracy theories.

          • Justastranger

            Dude you got all your points from Wikipedia lmao travel bro. And stop saying Negroid lol it’s not really scientifically or historically correct to say that anymore(Unless your racist haha get it); anything from the 19th century is considered worse than Afrocentric. Whites then have stunted history to make themselves seem God-like and blacks worse than dirt which is not true since lighter complexion is a pretty new thing in human history(8000 years old). Nubians and Egyptians have coexisted before the 25th dynasty their cultures are almost interchangeable, but you would have to go there to find out stop copying and pasting from Wiki just stop. Arabs and other lighter complexion people like the Romans were the last to come in during the Dynasties. Rome had a lot of Black (Black meaning people with Afroasiatic features not Black as the construct of Black in America). You think North Africans are all light complected, but that’s not true. Iran and the Middle East have a lot of Blacks. A lot of Asians have genetics of the San people in Africa. Bro get over yourself and travel and stop thinking Blacks are lesser and you will learn real history because there is only one race back then(Still is) they were darker unfortunately for you because of your bias which isn’t your fault society has made you to think white is right. There was only a few(Close to 1or 2) DNA strands that seperate skin color from other humans. Other than that the human race is pretty much originally African.

          • Dómari

            First, I did not reference Wikipedia once. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything since many topics are edited to be “politically correct” rather than accurate. None of your information about the Egyptians is correct. It flies in the face of genetic, anthropological, and archaeological studies. They were not a magical Negroid civilization. They are not related to West African Negroids in any way, shape, or form. The Egyptians and Nubians then and now are not interchangeable either genetically or culturally. That is utter bollox meant to blur the lines to justify Afrocentric chicanery.

            Second, no, I will continue to use Negroid as it is both scientifically and historically correct. It is used in the field of physical anthropology to this day along with other traditional classifications. You may not like it, but that does not mean it is invalid. Others in the soft science of sociology and its various bastard Marxist offshoots (incl. Africana Studies) may dislike it, but it is still valid and used within the actual hard sciences. There is not a single race. The races are discernible with ~100% accuracy in terms of both genetics and phenotype, and they produce unique cultures. The races are distinct, and pretending that we are all the same is politically correct claptrap. For example, geneticists can discern one’s “population of origin” (race) w/ ~100% accuracy using 0.1% of the available 650,000 SNPs. When actual scientists can discern race with hard science, only some sort of simpleton or disingenuous ideologue would claim that race does not exist.

            Third, the Egyptians and the Nubians only “coexisted” in that they were adjacent populations. They most certainly were not “interchangeable” until after the Egyptians conquered the Nubians, and that is because the conquerors virtually always run the new lands as they would their own. The ancient Egyptians are not some sort of mystery. There are surviving mummies, artwork, writings, and so on. The Egyptians were quite clear in how they depicted blacks, and they were not the same people. We know the history of Egypt and Nubia, and they were not interchangeable, mixed-race societies. If any of that nonsense was true, it would show up in the genetic and physical anthropology studies. Again, there also would have been no reason for either Egypt or Nubia to distinguish between themselves if they were genetically and culturally interchangeable and had been intermingling since before the First Dynasty was even on the horizon.

            Third, North Africans are Caucasoids as are West Asians. The only Negroids found in those places are the result of modern migrations since the age of medieval slavery at the earliest. Any non-Negroid “black” people are Caucasoids with dark skin, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Negroids. Again, you can keep making bogus claims, but geneticists, physical anthropologists, and archaeologists have done countless studies. The only people claiming Negroids existed around the world are Afrocentric loons that no real academic takes seriously. There is a reason they have their own special departments rather than just sticking to standard departments. There is also a reason that many of the “great Afrocentric scholars” have few or no credentials yet are allowed to teach in special departments with special requirements because it is PC to let them.

            Fourth, the human race is not “pretty much originally African.” The last shared ancestor between humans and apes was found in Europe, not Africa. All non-Negroids carry Neanderthal DNA that Negroids do not carry, and Asians also carry Denisovan DNA. Negroids carry Erectus DNA that non-Negroids do not carry. The Hofmeyr skull was dated to ~36,000 ybp, and it shows affinity with contemporary Upper Paleolithic Europeans, not local Sub-Saharan Africans. Additionally, the early proto-Negroids are dated to well after any migrations of the early humans out of Africa. If having a shared ancestor in Africa makes everyone “pretty much originally African,” then we are all “pretty much originally European” since an even earlier ancestor was in Europe. That is beyond ridiculous to say. The genus Homo is far more intertwined than once thought because early researchers thought that Sapiens, Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Erectus were all separate, but advances in genetics show that the early humans were all capable of interbreeding. A Caucasoid and Negroid are the result of two entirely different populations of Sapiens interbreeding with other entirely different early human populations in entirely different geographic locations. Regurgitating the tired line of “we’re all the human race” is little more than science denial of the highest order.

            Genetic studies also show that all non-Negroids are genetically distant from Negroids. Why? Because Europeans and Asians share Eurasian ancestors, but our last shared ancestor with Negroids is much further back (we do not descend from anything like a modern Negroid). In fact, the genetic distance is greater between the English and Bantus (.229) than between chimps and bonobos (.103), which are thought to have diverged into separate species ~1.5-2.0 mya. Caucasoids cluster together, Asians cluster together, and then their clusters cluster together before finally clustering with their most distant human relatives today: namely, Negroids.

            Finally, the only person who seems to care about skin color is you. “White” is a colloquial stand-in to mean European, but Caucasoids range from very pale in Northern Europe to very dark in South Asia. Skin color has virtually nothing to do whatsoever with racial classifications aside from the fact that it was convenient in the US to use “white” and “black” to mean European and Negroid. At the time, there was not a large number of non-European white Caucasoids or non-Negroid people with dark skin, so the simple terms were accurate and conveyed the intended meaning. That does not, however, mean that race is a social construct, or that the colloquial use of “white” and “black” was either inaccurate or pointless. A European Caucasoid is discernible from their African and Asian Caucasoid cousins in terms of genetics, and they are also discernible from most in terms of phenotype (narrowly, skin color). Thus, “white” clearly conveys what was meant: namely, the European subset of Caucasoids that formed Western civilization. In contrast, Negroids were really the only significant population in the US w/ dark skin, so “black” was also accurate in conveying what was actually meant: namely, Negroids.

          • William Tyler

            Ok Let me chyme on this as an evolutionary biologist/ecologist. First the term caucasiod/negroid/mongloid..was developed by european philosophers who use craniology as a method of identification. That should not be considered science. Nor should afro/eurocentric views. Second based on phylogenetic analysis on on ancient egyptians, Egypt was ethnic melting pot. With a rainbow of people. But thanks to modern euro/afrocentric views we paint a picture that favors us. When people back then probably did not care you skin tone..rather than your religion. Now I ask for any of you who are contributing to this debate I ask for you to cite. I am not trying to put anyones belief down, but the concepts of craniology, race, are so far fetched that we a sapiens are losing sight.

          • Dómari

            First, it is a bit nonsensical to entirely dismiss the traditional classifications when they are still in use among physical anthropologists. Indeed, there has been quite the effort to push anthropologists to stop using the terms despite those using them finding them useful (Smay and Armelagos, Transforming Anthropology 2000;9(2):19-29). In The Use of Forensic Anthropology (pp.82), Drs. Robert Pickering and David Bachman said, “In our current climate of multicultural sensitivity, some scholars, not forensic anthropologists, suggest that race does not exist, or at least it should not be talked about.”

            Science must be objective, but political correctness is anything but. Those claiming that race does not exist will often admit that “geographic distinctions” do exist. For example, John H. Relethford acknowledges that craniometric “variation is geographically structured, allowing high levels of classification accuracy when comparing crania from different parts of the world,” but he then falls back on a common tactic of the politically correct faction: namely, claiming that “boundaries in global variation are not abrupt and do not fit a strict view of the race concept” (Am Journal of Physical Anthropology 2009;139[1]:16-22). This purposely ignores that, as with genetic markers, clines will naturally exist between distinct populations, and the fact that hybrids exist in between does not negate that the distinct populations exist at either end. Of course, this is purposeful because it allows “race” to be dismissed for reasons of political correctness despite the blatant acknowledgement that distinct populations exist and can be classified with high degrees of accuracy. There is the science itself, and then there is how some wish to interpret the science to avoid conclusions they find distasteful.

            Second, this brings me to the dismissal of craniology, or the scientific study of the skull. We must distinguish between craniology and phrenology. As Relethford acknowledged, craniometry provides clear evidence of geographic variation, and craniology is merely the comparative study of skulls. Thus, craniology is not “pseudoscience” to be dismissed as even those wont to dismiss “race” acknowledge that there are distinct variations that can be and are compared scientifically to discern distinct populations.

            Again, the issue here is that some wish to put subjective political correctness over objective science by how they couch the science, or even the sources they use. For example, Smay and Armelagos above attacked the work of Samuel G. Morton regarding race and crania (1839;1844) based on the work of Gould (1981), but we now know that Gould’s criticism of Morton’s work was ridiculously biased and inaccurate while Morton’s data is reliable and was reported fully (Lewis et al, PLoS Biol 2011;9[7]:10.1371). For 30 years, Gould’s work was held up as proof that early anthropologists were racist and purposely skewed their data, but it is now known that Gould was disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. He was personally opposed to recognizing differences between populations, and he ensured that he reached the conclusion that fit his preconceived politically correct conclusion. Morton, demonized by so many for so long, has been vindicated as having been an excellent scientist.

            Third, I must question describing ancient Egypt as an “ethnic melting pot,” which carries a clear modern connotation. The Egyptians themselves clearly depicted different races, and they distinguished themselves from those of the Levant and the blacks to the south. Such distinctions would have been meaningless if the Egyptians themselves were mixed-race with all sorts of people intermingling in their society. It also would have been nonsensical for Senusret III, the 5th Pharaoh of the 12th Dynasty, to erect a stele in 1870 BC barring Nubians from going north except to trade in Iken, or with special permission. If Senusret himself and his people were mixed-race/multicultural, what good would it do to bar Nubians from entering if they’d look little different from the Egyptians themselves, or at least some portion thereof? In 1862 BC, he erected another stele greatly insulting the Nubians as being cowards unworthy of respect. Again, how would that make sense if the Egyptians were mixed-race and/or their own society had Nubians within it? It strains credulity to think that the Egyptians were genetically and culturally linked with the blacks to the south yet thought little of their relatives and somehow thought they could police them when the Nubians would have fit into the supposed multicultural “rainbow” of Egyptian society.

            Beyond archaeological evidence, we can indeed look at genetic evidence, albeit we do not have nearly as much within this realm. Paabo and Di Rienzo (1993) reported the mtDNA of a priest of the Middle Kingdom was similar to modern mtDNA samples from the region of the Delta, and they also claimed some “Sub-Saharan” lineages in the 12th Dynasty, albeit they did not define “Sub-Saharan,” did not define what the other lineages were, &c. There are obvious limitations with mtDNA not the least of which is that it is only a part of the genetic picture. Indeed, the value of mtDNA has been questioned in phylogenetic and taxonomic inferences (Rubinoff and Holland, Syst. Biol. 2005;54(6):952-961).

            Similar problems exist with Y-DNA. For example, Ramesses III, the 2nd Pharaoh of the 20th Dynasty, is said to be of the Y haplogroup E1b1a (Hawass et al, BMJ 2012;345:E8268). Now, it is true that E1b1a is most commonly found among Sub-Saharan Africans, but it is also found in North Africa and West Asia. Additionally, using Whit Athey’s predictor as Hawass et al did, Ramesses III could also be of E1b1b, which is far more common in North Africa than E1b1a. The distinction largely hinges on DYS 390=21. Aside from that single STR, the predictor shifts drastically so that Ramesses III is most likely E1b1b. Now, a sample from Chad confirmed to be E1b1b also carries DYS 390=21, which at least suggests that Ramesses III could fall in E1b1b evem with DYS 390=21, which is, again, far more common in Egypt.

            Additionally, Y-DNA is of limited value as it is passed from father to son, but it does not necessarily reflect phenotype of the individual. For example, many black men carry European Y-DNA, but virtually nothing about them would suggest they are “white.” There is much more to their DNA, and ancient Y-DNA can say one thing while generation after generation of breeding can result in their genome saying something else. For comparison, it has been found that “population of origin” can be discerned with ~100% accuracy when using less than 0.1% of 650,000 SNPs (Paschou et al, J Med Genet 2010;47:835-847). We do not have an SNP study of Ramesses III, however, so we are left with the possibility that his Y-DNA was E1b1a or E1b1b without knowing what that meant in reality. For example, E1b1a is estimated to be ~30,000 years old while E1b1b is over 20,000 years old. Thus, Ramesses III could indeed have carried E1b1a from an ancient Negroid ancestor yet still, for all intents and purposes, have been a North African Caucasoid. Again, many black Americans have no inkling that their Y-DNA is European, and the reality is the totality of their DNA is not European in origin. Blood typing of dynastic samples adds to the picture as ABO frequencies among mummies most closely matches modern Egyptians (Borgognini Tarli and Paoli, Homo 1982;33:69-89), and modern Egyptians genetically cluster with other North Africans according to Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza (1994). A mummy from the Late Dynastic period was shown to be of the maternal haplogroup I2, which is believed to have originated in West Asia (Khairat et al, J Appl Genet 2013;54(3):309-325).

            Thus, we must be careful when declaring ancient Egypt to be an “ethnic melting pot,” which implies that the Egyptians themselves were mixed-race as a whole or, at the very least, their society was multicultural in nature. The ancient Egyptians appear to be related with modern Egyptians, and there is reason to believe that the Egyptians were like other North African populations, which is to say they were not Negroid. This is bolstered by the fact that the Egyptians distinguished themselves from the peoples of the Levant and also from the Negroid peoples to the south. We can also look to the fact that the 25th Dynasty specifically was Nubian in origin, which made it stand out. Why would Senusret III of the 12th Dynasty have barred Nubians from entering Egypt or have insulted them so vociferously if he himself or his people were little different from or substantially included Nubians? Why would the 25th Dynasty have stood out as Nubian if previous dynasties or the people were also Nubian in part or whole? Why would the Egyptians have so accurately depicted Nubians time and again while distinguishing themselves as looking like other North Africans? There is genetic, archaeological, and cultural evidence that the ancient Egyptians were a North African Caucasoid population, albeit admixture was certainly possible

            Finally, to return to the earlier science, craniology is not phrenology. It is not some sort of nonsensical pseudoscience. The comparative study of human skulls is still valid science, and it is still used by physical anthropologists with high degrees of accuracy. It also follows that race is not some “far fetched” concept when it has to be acknowledged that geographically distinct populations do exist. Caucasoid populations can be discerned by looking at a range of physical traits, and they can also be discerned by looking at a range of genetic markers. If race was a “social construct,” then we should not be able to identify any population with any method. There is variation within populations as well as gradations between populations, but that does not change the fact that current science alone shows that physical anthropologists and geneticists can discern a person’s self-identified race with a high degree of accuracy. Those who wish to be politically correct single out lone aspects of phenotype to claim that race does not exist, but an organism is not defined by only a small part of their phenotype. Genetics and morphology are both important parts thereof, and both can identify us. The traditional race classifications can still be accurately used to denote the broad continental groups, and the only reason “race” is a dirty word is because people somehow believe that past wrongs can be righted by pretending that we are all the “human race.” Sapiens, Erectus, Neanderthal, and Denisovans were all able to interbreed, and we recognize the differences between each. Europeans and Asians both carry Neanderthal DNA, Asians also carry Denisovan DNA, and Africans carry even more archaic DNA (Hammer et al, PNAS 2011;108[37]:15123–15128). Why then do we have to pretend that modern humans cannot be classified and differentiated through objective science? Of course, that is a rhetorical question because the answer is obvious—political correctness trumps all.

            As an aside, I have relied upon scientific evidence throughout. I did not bother citing chapter and verse, but why would I? This is not a formal academic setting, and, in my experience, the Afrocentric audience is not any more likely to listen just because a citation is provided. Still, I relied upon valid scientific evidence that could be verified by anyone choosing to do so. My opponents, if they are worthy of the title, have instead made baseless claims, relied upon Afrocentric pseudoscience that is not taken seriously in any other academic departments, and dismissed any and all legitimate science as “racist” because it does not comport with their ideological beliefs. Why then am I the one receiving a request for citations as though the information is not commonly known by those who follow the research, or is not easily confirmed by those who do not?

            I reject the label “Eurocentric” when I have already said that the Egyptians were neither European nor “white.” I also reject the notion that the comparative study of human skulls is pseudoscience, which it patently is not, or that traditional classifications are “far fetched” or not in use as they are recognized as useful and used among physical anthropologists, albeit there is disagreement. I have now been arguing on this for 8 months, and the only thing that seems to have come from it is more people asserting that accepted scientific fields and research are “racist” and “far fetched” because objective science that hurts feelings or egos must bend to subjective political correctness.

          • William Tyler

            OK I respect your view but forensic Anthropology is not a clear cut to the past. Craniology is not either for example..”Negroid” skull is suppose to have some protruding gnathostome features, zygomatic..etc. But what happened when those features are lost in other negroid skull and are found in Caucasiod skulls. It is not clear cut nor relevent. Natural Selection is not that clear. Even still to denote the true migration of man it is best to go into Mitochondrial DNA. Like I tell my students the only race of man is sapiens. Yes Neanderthals were found in europe but the is no eveidence that there was any interbreeding between them and Homo Erectus precusors to sapiens which is found in Africa. Also lets us not forget that during those times the reproductive barrier (sahara desert) was not there. Instead looking at what Civ was this our that..lets look at how marvelous it was to see the migration out of africa was again converged in the pacific islands. How the migrants who took two different paths came back together . It is amazing

          • Dómari

            First, the point is that no single physical feature is used to make a determination. It is true that the typical Negroid skull demonstrates prognathism relative to Caucasoid or Mongoloid skulls, but that feature alone is not enough upon which to base a determination of race. As with genetics, the more traits (or markers) analyzed the more accurate the determination will be. Forensic anthropologists can identify race with a high degree of accuracy by looking at a number of different features, and singling out variance in single traits does not negate that fact.

            Second, the debate among anthropologists is that mtDNA does not provide the entire picture. Some would throw it out entirely when trying to infer things about a subject. The fact is that mtDNA alone cannot necessarily provide an accurate picture of a person, but a SNP study can actually show us much about who the subject actually was without leaving huge room for guesses.

            Finally, “the only race of man is sapiens” is a good slogan, but it belies what we actually know of man today and in the past. We all recognize Erectus, Neanderthalensis, and Denisovans as being different, but we know that they all interbred with Sapiens. Whether or not Erectus and Neanderthal interbred separate of Sapiens is not particularly relevant as it does not negate the fact that Sapiens in Africa interbred with Erectus while Sapiens in Eurasia interbred with Neanderthal. The absence of evidence of Neanderthal interbreeding with Erectus also is not evidence of absence as there are severe limitations in collecting DNA from surviving samples, particularly in Africa. The point is that no one would say, “They are all the human race,” as though their differences are trivial. Recognizing our differences does not have to mean anything negative. Instead, it is amazing to see how adaptable the human race has been.

          • William Tyler

            Well I respect your input, even though we may disagree. You are more from the Anthropological aspect, where I am from more along the Evo. Biological aspect. But I respect the debate and I will agree that the human species is an amazing thing.

          • Dómari

            Yes, on that we agree.

          • James

            I noticed you did not share your sources……LOL….get out of here you wanna be history teacher.

          • Justastranger

            The guys an idiot he still lives in the 1940’s with his racist science. No need to address him he will die out pretty soon.

          • Dómari

            Says the person with nothing whatsoever to offer. The fields of genetics, archaeology, and forensic anthropology are not “racist science” just because you dislike their findings. Now, perhaps you should take the time to learn how to formulate a cogent thought, research things outside of whatever little amateur echo chamber from which you crawled out, and try to master crafting sentences and paragraphs so that the nonsense that spews forth from you is at least somewhat intelligible.

            Or perhaps you could just stick to discussing anime and “World Star Hip Hop”?

          • James

            You may need to stick to discussing heavy metal music and the Gothic scene. Still can’t figure out why anyone would want to implant metal spikes in their head. Mmmmm…..

          • demetrius

            What about the ancient Japanese called the ainus. The indigenous people of japan black skin wooly hair.and i do research and this is the first time I’ve herd the white people from african fact there’s a documentary on net flix called mankind that totally debunks your theory. It shows africans come from Africa and Europe the white man did not show up till after the iceage. Also there is still no missing link between man and ape

          • James

            You only posted misinformation. Gregor Mendel (Nobel Prize Winner) proved black genes are dominate and white genes are recessive. This proves white people are the offspring of black albinos that migrated from Africa. All life originated in Africa. Not Europe!

          • Molech

            Using Eurocentric “facts” simply because they were fabricated first just amplifies your hypocrisy. Lloyd Pye’s research on Darwinism magnifies the political motives behind anthropological and archaeological findings. Who the phuk do you think pays for the “research”? Mainstream academics uses bullshit it invented to explain the rest of their bullshit. Let me guess, 100% of your research is founded on the research of others…I mean, I doubt you are actually taking part in any of these excavations…Everything you think you know, you learned from someone that doesn’t…just to give you an idea of where your opinions stand.

          • Pax Humana

            The reality is that both Afrocentrism AND evolution, as well as their related ilk, stem from racism, bigotry, discrimination, prejudice, and Lucifer originated policies. However, with that being said, Yasuke does indeed sound like a bad ass and a mmovie, were it done right, would be awesome with him in the role. This sounds like one story that Akira Kurosawa sadly missed and that would have also made a lot of money for himself.

      • Umar Abdur-Rahman


        • James

          Amen! Amen! Amen!

        • Nikeimizhong

          “let them out of darkness” thats a pun right? haha
          And i call bullshit on Africa being the oldest and origin of humanity. what is the connection between Scandinavia and Negros? not much i assume, or native americans? none either.
          black people are the least developed by evolution, no offense but white people are exploring the space while African people are still literary eating eachother, cannibalism and mass rapes are still common.

          • Starr Jonez

            I call bullshit on your entire life. How you even have enough brain matter to type is beyond comprehension.

      • Starr Jonez

        Oh boy. Another Stormfront troll…

      • Blackaveli

        Stupid ass fake Eurocentric bullshit lmao.

  • Lenom

    I should check the details of the story somewhere else, coz I doubt stories where the easiest parts have errors. I mean 2 meters does not equal 6ft, like it is ‘suggested’ here, hah

    • Jer

      Approximation. Six feet is the rounded size when people are referencing height relating to someone tall in US english, as one might say two meters of someone tall in a metric based society. Yes the actual measurement is off by a significant margin, but I use this approximation myself when talking with mixed metric and imperial company.

  • Terence Helikaon Nunis

    This would make an awesome Quentin Tarantino movie.

    • Loki Nahat

      Nobody could make a good Quentin Tarantino movie, even he can’t make one.

  • Sean

    Wonder if thats where they got the story for Tom Cruise in The Last Samurai.

    • Dómari

      Tom Cruise’s character in The Last Samurai was based on, or rather inspired by, the experiences of French Army officers (specifically, Jules Brunet & Eugène Collache) sent to Japan as part of a military mission who then fought for the Shogun during the Boshin War, but Ken Watanabe’s character was instead based on Saigo Takamori, the leader of the later Satsuma Rebellion. So the movie itself is an amalgamation of historical people and events.

  • Black samurai

    Wow … Been in Japan for 10 years … Interested in samurai story half my life but never knew bout this …

  • Collin H Haughton

    Your story is incorrect. All of Asia is black land the original people of Asia are black and still is, what you see now is recessive trait passed down by black genes. Their languages are still spoken in tribes in Africa to this day.

    Linguists have pointed out that at least eight Asian major
    languages are of African origins. They are:



    South Indian






    In fact, African texts “THE BOOK OF ANI,’ makes it
    clear that one group of Africans called the Anu migrated first to Mesopotamia,
    then to India, then all the way to Japan about 10,000 years ago. The Anu lived
    in the Sahara and Egypt and after warring with the rest of the Egyptians, they
    migrated eastward.

    The Chinese language comes from the super language called
    Manding-Kush. It is a proto-language that was spoken in the Sahara as early as
    30,000 BC and is still a major language family today.

    Manding-Kush includes the Afro-Asiatic languages (Arabic,
    Hebrew, Tiginya), the Ba-Ntu language family, the Niger-Kordofanian, the
    Cushitic, the Manding-Shi (language of prehistoric Blacks of America, still
    spoken by Black American Indians like the, Yamassee, Gwele, Afro-Darienite,
    some Afro-Mestizas (Mandinga) of Mexico, Choco, Black Californian, Caracoles,
    Guanini and others; see “A History of the African-Olmecs,” published
    by also see

    In parts of Africa, particularly from Sudan to Senegal and
    from the Sahara to South Africa, there are thousands of names that are
    identical in sound to both Chinese and Japanese. For example, names like Kong,
    Cheng-cheng, Ming, Yang, Anyang (ancient Cameroon city), Kwango, Chu, Wong,
    Fang, Ndong, Deng, Ndongo (ancient kingdom of Angola) and others are all
    African names used today.


    Well some of us know that humans left Africa about 40,000
    years ago (modern humans without any hair on their bodies) and migrated to
    Asia, Australia, India and Europe. In fact, the first people to leave Africa
    entered India. From India they moved into SE Asia, Australia. When the one-mile
    high ice sheet that covered Asia and Europe melted, they moved into Asia and

    Furthermore, looking at the faces of at least 25 percent of
    Africans in places like Sudan and Congo to South Africa, one clearly sees many
    features found in East Asian people and many found in East Indian people. In
    fact, the Kong-San of South Africa and tens of millions of Africans in the
    region where climatic conditions are as harsh as East Asia, do have similar
    facial characteristics as East Asians.

    Yet, Africans have had these features for over one million
    years (high cheekbones, epicanthus fold, ect., but black to brown skins, kinky
    hair, small to tall stature). Hence let’s say the Africans who migrated to
    China about 40,000 years ago had features like the Kong-San.

    Names and words that are identical and similar to Japanese
    words with similar meanings are found in parts of East Africa and in the
    Kalahari region of Nigeria.

  • Justastranger

    Sakanouye No Tamuramaro was a black shogun during Tokugawa’s reign.

  • Nikeimizhong

    samurai are gay anyway , they have that OP gay culture were a student had to sleep with their master in order for him to trade knowledge in return , dunno why they get so many fans. They are not like in anime or movies.

  • TruthBeTold

    This article is flawed…there were no slaves in 1500 BC. The term slave comes from the Latin word Slavik and originated in the Middle Ages. At the very least, Yasuke would have been a prisoner of war, but more than likely he was an explorer. Also, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as we know them today didn’t exist yet…so the idea he was taken from his home by a Jesuit priest is rubbish.