quote:The Germanic peoples - they are new to Western Europe
Keep in mind that Germanic is just a language, and Germanic like most of European languages and cultures is indeed very young.
Proto Germanic is usually posited as going back to no more than 600 BC.
Prior to this, there is no 'germanic' people, per se.
Europe has been inhabited for the 30 thousand years -> and like it or not, modern Germanic and non Germanic speaking Europeans have provable genetic pedigree that goes right back to Ice age dwellers from 10's of thousands of years ago, long before the existence of 'germanic'.
quote:It is these people who through "ethnic cleansing" changed the population of Europen from African to white
^ this is conspiracy theory, propaganda, neurotic obession and pseudoscience, everything *but* history.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marc Washington, I am curious as to why you and other American Afrocentrics seem so interested in "blackening" ancient non-Africans instead of taking pride in actual black African civilizations. You don't see Native Americans, Melanesians, Australian aborigines, or Polynesians doing anything comparable. They are perfectly proud of their real ancestors even though they were often even more backward than Africans. It seems that the only people of color with your mentality are a noisy handful of African-Americans with grudges against white people.
My conjecture is that it's some variety of coping with personal self-hatred. If I were a black American, I would be perfectly satisfied with the actual black African civilizations we know exist (not to mention yet-unknown ones whose ruins still lie overgrown in the jungle or swallowed by desert sands), yet you and your fellow Afrocentrics aren't, as if they weren't good enough for you. You appear to think that Africans must have been responsible for Eurasian and Mesoamerican civilizations to be great. That sounds like the mind of a self-hating Oreo, not a self-satisfied black man.
You might want to see a psychiatrist about your self-hating slave mentality.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrann0saurus: Marc Washington, I am curious as to why you and other American Afrocentrics seem so interested in "blackening" ancient non-Africans instead of taking pride in actual black African civilizations. You don't see Native Americans, Melanesians, Australian aborigines, or Polynesians doing anything comparable. They are perfectly proud of their real ancestors even though they were often even more backward than Africans. It seems that the only people of color with your mentality are a noisy handful of African-Americans with grudges against white people.
My conjecture is that it's some variety of coping with personal self-hatred. If I were a black American, I would be perfectly satisfied with the actual black African civilizations we know exist (not to mention yet-unknown ones whose ruins still lie overgrown in the jungle or swallowed by desert sands), yet you and your fellow Afrocentrics aren't, as if they weren't good enough for you. You appear to think that Africans must have been responsible for Eurasian and Mesoamerican civilizations to be great. That sounds like the mind of a self-hating Oreo, not a self-satisfied black man.
You might want to see a psychiatrist about your self-hating slave mentality.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is not an issue of "blackening" history. . .it is an issue of getiing at the TRUTH after several centuries of LIES. Genetics is helping pave the way. Case in point tyhe known FACT of Greece and African ancestry. Not only Greec but maybe ALL of soutern Europe.
From anoher thread -
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: This notion that E3a lineages >>>>
Mitochondrial DNA sequences and restriction fragment polymorphisms were retrieved from three Islamic 12th-13th century samples of 71 bones and teeth (with >85% efficiency) from Madinat Baguh (today called Priego de Cordoba, Spain). Compared with 108 saliva samples from the present population of the same area, the medieval samples show a higher proportion of sub-Saharan African lineages that can only partially be attributed to the historic Muslim occupation. In fact, the unique sharing of transition 16175, in L1b lineages, with Europeans, instead of Africans, suggests a more ancient arrival to Europe from Africa - Casas et al.
On the same token,>>>> .
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrann0saurus: Marc Washington, I am curious as to why you and other American Afrocentrics seem so interested in "blackening" ancient non-Africans instead of taking pride in actual black African civilizations. You don't see Native Americans, Melanesians, Australian aborigines, or Polynesians doing anything comparable. They are perfectly proud of their real ancestors even though they were often even more backward than Africans. It seems that the only people of color with your mentality are a noisy handful of African-Americans with grudges against white people.
My conjecture is that it's some variety of coping with personal self-hatred. If I were a black American, I would be perfectly satisfied with the actual black African civilizations we know exist (not to mention yet-unknown ones whose ruins still lie overgrown in the jungle or swallowed by desert sands), yet you and your fellow Afrocentrics aren't, as if they weren't good enough for you. You appear to think that Africans must have been responsible for Eurasian and Mesoamerican civilizations to be great. That sounds like the mind of a self-hating Oreo, not a self-satisfied black man.
You might want to see a psychiatrist about your self-hating slave mentality.
It has nothing to do with self-hatred--it's setting the record straight. Marc has pointed out that whites only recently arrived in Europe. This is a truth as he has demonstrated in this thread.
People with a slave mentality believe in anything Europeans teach them. Free thinking people seek the truth and use research to confirm the great history of the Black race.
The question is not why Afro-Americans are teaching the truth. The question is why Europeans, like yourself, can't handle the reality that Blacks contributed much to the rise of ancient civilizations and cultur eand much of what you have been taught about ancient history is a bunch of lies.
posted
What my MENTOR has brought to our attention. . .at least to mine is that the Europeans that we see so prevalent today through out Europe and other parts of the world were NOT of the same type as what was prevalent prior to the Germanic peoples expansion, as referenced in many parts of this thread. Rasol and others may say Europeans are Europeans so it doesn't matter.
My view is it DOES matter since perceptions can be seen as reality ie TRUTH.
I always agreed that the recent arrivees have done a tremendous amount since they have taken over the world. But the point is they are recent and they are NOT the originators of ALL the advancements/discoveries in the world today. Their civilization is built on the previous works done by others.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: What my MENTOR has brought to our attention. . .at least to mine is that the Europeans that we see so prevalent today through out Europe and other parts of the world were NOT of the same type as what was prevalent prior to the Germanic peoples expansion, as referenced in many parts of this thread. Rasol and others may say Europeans are Europeans so it doesn't matter.
My view is it DOES matter since perceptions can be seen as reality ie TRUTH.
I always agreed that the recent arrivees have done a tremendous amount since they have taken over the world. But the point is they are recent and they are NOT the originators of ALL the advancements/discoveries in the world today. Their civilization is built on the previous works done by others.
posted
Thanks Dr. Winters. For the sake of others, I'd like to post the following page again depicting the route and time Europeans-to-be entered Europe:
quote:The question is not why Afro-Americans are teaching the truth. The question is why Europeans, like yourself, can't handle the reality that Blacks contributed much to the rise of ancient civilizations and cultur eand much of what you have been taught about ancient history is a bunch of lies.
Do you think that blacks can only contribute to civilization if it means replacing the European and Amerindian identities of the Greek and Olmec civilizations with fictitious black ones? Do you think the civilizations in Africa weren't good enough on their own?
I believe Africans have proven themselves as capable of developing civilization as Europeans, Asians, and Native Americans---as proven by the civilizations they built in Africa. They didn't have to build Greece, Mesoamerica, China, or any other non-African civilization to prove that ability. Your insistence that they did says to me that you think the actual achievements of Africans were inadequate. That doesn't sound like a sentiment a truly proud black person would have, it sounds like a feeling by a black person trying to cope with his self-hatred and cover it up.
Well guess what---making up fantasies and deluding yourself about black Olmecs, black Olmecs, and black Shang will not make you hate yourself less. It only makes you look like a fool and gets everyone else to hate you more.
posted
Huh?! Is this guy a fruit . Or very young . . . or naive?
I don't know enough about the Olmec thing or Ainu but I can definitely entertain the idea that of the influence of Africa on Southern Europe or all of "Europe". Mainly because of proximity. This will be one of the first place Africans will migrate to if they can't take an airplane.
quote:The question is not why Afro-Americans are teaching the truth. The question is why Europeans, like yourself, can't handle the reality that Blacks contributed much to the rise of ancient civilizations and cultur eand much of what you have been taught about ancient history is a bunch of lies.
Do you think that blacks can only contribute to civilization if it means replacing the European and Amerindian identities of the Greek and Olmec civilizations with fictitious black ones? Do you think the civilizations in Africa weren't good enough on their own?
I believe Africans have proven themselves as capable of developing civilization as Europeans, Asians, and Native Americans---as proven by the civilizations they built in Africa. They didn't have to build Greece, Mesoamerica, China, or any other non-African civilization to prove that ability. Your insistence that they did says to me that you think the actual achievements of Africans were inadequate. That doesn't sound like a sentiment a truly proud black person would have, it sounds like a feeling by a black person trying to cope with his self-hatred and cover it up.
Well guess what---making up fantasies and deluding yourself about black Olmecs, black Olmecs, and black Shang will not make you hate yourself less. It only makes you look like a fool and gets everyone else to hate you more.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: so the Africans (generically also called those of Gaul, Celts,and Moors) could tend
If I understand you right you see R1b as a African Haplogroup present in Europe of people who had negroide features and on the other hand you see R1a as a Haplogroup that was carried be people who had who were white. But how can this be because both Haplogroups are related to each other. So how can one be negroide and other not? Given the fact that both were present in the same Geographical area? If I understand you right you claim that white Germanic people killed the native African male population off like Celts who you see as people of negroide appearance. But Europe still has high frequencies of R1b. If I follow your logic correctly this would mean that modern Europeans would have a mongrel look in there appearance, what is not the case. Also if Celts were Africans and Germanic people not why did actually both speak a branch of the Indo-European language?
Proto-Celtic_language The Proto-Celtic language, also called Common Celtic, is the putative ancestor of all the known Celtic languages. Probably spoken around 800 BC, its lexis can be confidently reconstructed on the basis of the comparative method of historical linguistics. Proto-Celtic is a direct daughter-language of Proto-Indo-European.
Diodorus Siculus ca. 90 BC– ca. 27 BC, a Greek historian, described Gauls. [i]The Gauls are tall of body with rippling muscles and white of skin and their hair is blond, and not only naturally so for they also make it their practice by artificial means to increase the distinguishing colour which nature has given it. For they are always washing their hair in limewater and they pull it back from the forehead to the nape of the neck, with the result that their appearance is like that of Satyrs and Pans since the treatment of their hair makes it so heavy and coarse that it differs in no respect from the mane of horses. Some of them shave the beard but others let it grow a little; and the nobles shave their cheeks but they let the moustache grow until it covers the mouth.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still don't get this phenomenon with the obsession of blonde, blue eys and pale skin. But even TODAY most(majority)southern Europeans ARE dark skinned, dark/black haired and dark eyes.
Even the Greeks per the above comment noted that these traits are "uncommon" to them.
So approx 60 Bc the Greeks were stilled "mixed"
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
I think those in the page below are the population that it would best serve you to look at. They are no more to be found in those lands pictured below. But it was they who were the foundation and, actually, those who would come later not only took their land and riches but would often take on their names and maintain their religions as well. If you think over various white groups today in the lands Africans were once found in the ANE, North Africa, Southern Europe and so, some carry the same names of Africans before them. Think about it. And, here is the page and population below I referred to above.
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: This is what Tacitus says:
...The tribes which first crossed the Rhine and drove out the Gauls ... were ... called Germans ... which the conquerors had first employed to inspire terror.
...In former times it was not by land but on shipboard that those who sought to emigrate would arrive.
They are less able to bear laborious work. Heat and thirst they cannot in the least endure; to cold and hunger their climate and their soil inure them.
If their native state sinks into the sloth of prolonged peace and repose, many of its noble youths voluntarily seek those tribes which are waging some war, both because inaction is odious to their race, and because they win renown more readily in the midst of peril, and cannot maintain a numerous following except by violence and war. Indeed, men look to the liberality of their chief for their war-horse and their bloodstained and victorious lance. Feasts and entertainments, which, though inelegant, are plentifully furnished, are their only pay. The means of this bounty come from war and rapine. Nor are they as easily persuaded to plough the earth and to wait for the year's produce as to challenge an enemy and earn the honour of wounds. Nay, they actually think it tame and stupid to acquire by the sweat of toil what they might win by their blood.
To pass an entire day and night in drinking disgraces no one. Their quarrels, as might be expected with intoxicated people, are seldom fought out with mere abuse, but commonly with wounds and bloodshed.
ROTFL Tacitus's records show that the Germans crossed the Rhine from the *NORTH* as in Northwestern Europe and NOT from the east (or steppes) or even outside of Europe!!
Marc, all you do is misconstrue evidence or you just flat out lie.
Here is Europe
The earliest archaeological remains scholars associate Germanic speakers with is the Nordic Bronze culture of Denmark and southernwestern Scandanavia 1700 BC to 850 BC:
Then in 750 BC – AD 1, the tribes begin to expand some:
(Wikimap couldn't download)
And finally from AD 100 - AD 500, the tribes began their massive dispersal to the rest of Europe:
^ So there you have it. A brief history to the origin and spread of Germanic peoples. They did not come from the Russian steppes (which is still in Europe) but from northwestern Europe as evidence from all disciplines indicate and have never been argued against by sane person.
One question that some people might have is who or what populations were living in central and western Europe before the Germanic take over?
The answer is simply the Celtic peoples:
Of course as indigenous Europeans both Germanic and Celtic peoples were white, and no one argues against that but nutcases.
And what about southern Europeans like Romans such as the historian Tacitus whom Marc cited?
Of course they as indigenous Europeans are white as well:
Tacitus Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Huh?! Is this guy a fruit . Or very young . . . or naive?
I don't know enough about the Olmec thing or Ainu but I can definitely entertain the idea that of the influence of Africa on Southern Europe or all of "Europe". Mainly because of proximity. This will be one of the first place Africans will migrate to if they can't take an airplane.
One can ask the same questions of you including 'is this guy retarded or less intelligent?' considering that you continue to misinterpret every fact Rasol, others, and I continue to present yet take in everything Marc Washington says!
quote: Still don't get this phenomenon with the obsession of blonde, blue eys and pale skin. But even TODAY most(majority)southern Europeans ARE dark skinned, dark/black haired and dark eyes.
Even the Greeks per the above comment noted that these traits are "uncommon" to them.
So approx 60 Bc the Greeks were stilled "mixed"
Not all Greeks are mixed, and dark hair and eyes have little to do with admixture as southern European Sardinians have no African mixture at all yet they all have the typical dark hair and eyes of other Mediterranean Europeans.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrann0saurus: I believe Africans have proven themselves as capable of developing civilization as Europeans, Asians, and Native Americans---as proven by the civilizations they built in Africa. They didn't have to build Greece, Mesoamerica, China, or any other non-African civilization to prove that ability. Your insistence that they did says to me that you think the actual achievements of Africans were inadequate. That doesn't sound like a sentiment a truly proud black person would have, it sounds like a feeling by a black person trying to cope with his self-hatred and cover it up.
The fact that we write about the great role played by Blacks in Europe and America has nothing to do with believing the achievements of Africans are "inadequate", what we are doing is telling the truth. It is clear from your comments that you have a white supremist attitude.
This white supremacy is found in everything we learn, read and see while experiencing life. As a result, science, history etc., is not neutral European supremacy in embeded in everything.
Amos Wilson wrote:
quote: Every course we go into is uinterwined with European history. We can't escape it So simply becuase we don't show up in some class that calls itself the History of Europe. Not by a long shot. In every discipline we study in the college/university/school we're going to run into European history:it is intimately intertwined (pp.17-18)
Dr. Wilson adds:
quote: "In the final analysis, European history' function is to first separate us from the reality of ourselves and separate us from the reality of the word;to separate us from the relality of our history and to separates us from its ramifications".
"We have to recognize that European history-writing is an institution, the way any other discipline is an institution. And the function of institutions in any oppressive society is to maintain the status quo....The European writing of history is in tandem with everything elase European and its purpose is ultimately the same: to maintain European power and domination"(p.25).
You dare come to a site were the African origin of the Egyptians is regraded as fact and attempt to get Black people to follow your guidiance in not researching and writing about the actual history of Blacks which include the discussion of the ancient African diaspora.
Amos Wilson, The Falsification of Afrikan Consiousness: Eurocentric History, psychiatry and the politics of white Supremacy , outlines the thought pattern of people like you. People like you believe that Black people have no ancient history, and you fight tooth and nail to make everyone believe this myth to be true. Wilson, points out that the African centered researcher is considered a threat to the status quo, because their writing of truth filled history is a frontal attack on white supremacy.
You claim that Blacks are trying to take away the history of the Greeks and native Americans. This is a bold face lie. There are no native Americans claiming the Olmec civilization (if there is please name the group now)--in fact these people clearly see the civilization as a civilization of "Negroes". If you would study native American history, you would know that the Aztec and Maya know and claim their own history.
You claim Blacks are trying to steal the history of the Greeks. This is also a lie. Greeco-Roman literature make it clear that the original civilization in Greece was founded by the Pelasgians, who the Greeks admit were not of the same ethnic group. The Greeks also admit that much of their civilization and culture came from Egypt. The evidence makes it clear that since the Native Americans and the Greeks do not claim the ancient history of the places they presently live, Afro-Americans can not be stealing anyone's history.
Your problem is that you are ashamed of the fact that Afrocentric researchers prove the lie to the history you have been taught. You are hurt that all you believed about the greatness of western Civilization, today and in the past is untrue.
Commenting on people like you Wilson wrote:
"Apparently the rewriting of history, the distortion and the stealing of our history must serve vital economic, political and social functions for the Europeans or else he would not bother and try so hard to keep our history away from us, and to distort it in our own minds"(p.15).
This characterizes your activities on this forum you ask questions that have already been answered many times, hoping no one will respond so someone might believe what you are saying is valid. Wilson maintains that people like you do this because:
quote: It is in the nature of racist culture to hide its political agenda. Therefore, it presents so-called facts and information as if they have no political connections or implications(p.15)
Because it is the intention of Europeans that Blacks never escape their condition of servitude. A higher education means that we will just be educated servants--nothing more, nothing less (p.18).
African centered historians have strong self-esteem and understand that the writing and teaching of history is political. We know that African people need to know their history so they can situate themselves in time and place relative to their being.
Afro-Americans who buy into the historical myths taught in history text and the school are mentally ill. Wilson commenting on this reality observed that:
quote: People who are ahistorical who have little knowledge of history , are people who are more gullible, more easily manipulated and people who can be more easily adapted to the capitalist machine than people who are historially knowledgeable (p18).
Your anger results from the fact Afrocentric researchers name and define the paradigms of history absent European supremacy. Wilson noted that: "We must recognize the intimate relationship between culture, history and personality. If we do not know our history then we do not know our personality" (p.23).
posted
^ And your desperation to claim ancient cultures of Europe belonged to blacks and that whites are "recent" arrivals to the region only confirms your albophobia (fear of whites)! Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My view is it DOES matter since perceptions can be seen as reality ie TRUTH.
Truth matters.
Here is the truth:
Europeans are in the main descendant from paleolithic cave dwelling hunter gathers from the 3 ice age refugeum shown.
This corresponds to the following genetic lineages....
When this redundant thread is on page 54, and you've come up with dozens of new ways to stink your own mind with the adolescent fantasies you prefer to the truth, the truth will be precisely as denoted on the 1st page of this thread.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny thing is the benefits of knowledge of self, sourced from ones history, culture and heritage is a universal axiom and applies to everyone. Unfortunately, there are a handful of people worldwide who believe this universal law and birthright of human survival and advancement does not apply to Black people (even though ancient Blacks likely discovered this truth first). And to defend this position, these people will stoop to the lowest level, of the unbelievable intelligent-stupidity and even, consciously mirror their crude deeds onto the victims in attempt to mimic the victims suffering in order to manage, limit or eliminate the effects of guilt and damages cause by revelation of the long lists of their deceptive, crude and vile inhumane behaviors throughout modern history. They choose this path instead of admitting all of their wrongs, or even to display any substantial proof of genuine moral evolution or maturity by beginning a process of healing with the golden aim of doing genuine good and gaining the trust of their victims that they’re not anti-humans, particularly anti-Blacks.
But I doubt this will ever happen this way. At least in my perfect world it would. So I guess we’ll just have to settle for the golden rule of the hood: “if you ain’t getting’ respect, you gots to take respect.” Wooord!
Posts: 213 | From: New York City, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quote from DJ - One question that some people might have is who or what populations were living in central and western Europe before the Germanic take over?
So bro . . .you are coming over to the DARK SIDE
Now let's analyze the Celtic people!!!!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: My view is it DOES matter since perceptions can be seen as reality ie TRUTH.
But as Rasol says, we are dealing with ONLY truth and not some insane perceptions such as blacks indigenous to Europe while whites are newcomers to the region! LOL
I don't know whose less sane, your mentor (Marc) or YOU for learning his claims.
Here is TRUTH:
Paleolithic groups who are Eurasian in immediate origin and whose ancestors came from Africa tens of millennia before settled in Ice Age refuges.
As the glaciers melt, they expand into other parts of Europe.
^ During the whole process, they evolved pale skin i.e. became what we know today as whites. Thus whites are indigenous to Europe and did not enter from outside or as Marc claims "the steppes" as a euphimism for 'nowhere'. LOL I find it funny, because some white scholars in the past made a similar claim about blacks once-- that the whole world was populated by "caucasoids" who represent original humanity including Africa and that blacks (from out of nowhere) replaced the original inhabitants of Africa! Now Marc reverses the racist view on whites. Tit-for-tat will get you nowhere Marc.
Now flashforward tens of thousands of years later to around 7000 BC, when migrants from Western Asia and Africa enter Europe from the tip of the Balkan peninsula (Greece) and introduce Neolithic technology-- agriculture and animal domestication. These immigrants were a minority and were absorbed by the indigenous (white) natives who were in the majority. Hence Classical Greeks look 'white' but some carry African E and West Asian J lineages.
Then just several thousand years later around 3000 BC, Indo-European languages spread to the rest of Europe probably from the Russian steppes (which is still in Europe). Where Indo-European languages originated has no bearing on the simple FACT that indigenous Europeans everywhere were already white!
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Afro-Americans who buy into the historical myths taught in history text and the school are mentally ill. Wilson commenting on this reality observed that:
People who are ahistorical who have little knowledge of history , are people who are more gullible, more easily manipulated and people who can be more easily adapted to the capitalist machine than people who are historially knowledgeable (p18).
Sorry to say - but nothing is wrong with Capitalism or a free market economy.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Quote from DJ - One question that some people might have is who or what populations were living in central and western Europe before the Germanic take over?
So bro . . .you are coming over to the DARK SIDE
And exactly what is that suppose to mean?? I stick to just one side-- that of TRUTH!
quote:Now let's analyze the Celtic people!!!!
Yes, lets:
Proto-Celtic_language The Proto-Celtic language, also called Common Celtic, is the putative ancestor of all the known Celtic languages. Probably spoken around 800 BC, its lexis can be confidently reconstructed on the basis of the comparative method of historical linguistics. Proto-Celtic is a direct daughter-language of Proto-Indo-European.
Diodorus Siculus ca. 90 BC– ca. 27 BC, a Greek historian, described Gauls (A Celtic group):
The Gauls are tall of body with rippling muscles and white of skin and their hair is blond, and not only naturally so for they also make it their practice by artificial means to increase the distinguishing colour which nature has given it. For they are always washing their hair in limewater and they pull it back from the forehead to the nape of the neck, with the result that their appearance is like that of Satyrs and Pans since the treatment of their hair makes it so heavy and coarse that it differs in no respect from the mane of horses. Some of them shave the beard but others let it grow a little; and the nobles shave their cheeks but they let the moustache grow until it covers the mouth.
^ As you can see, this (white) ancient Greek even described the Celts as 'white'. Which reflects the reality that Celts were indeed whiter than southern Europeans like Greeks.
Moving on...
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ During the Bronze Age while Celts were originally in the blue areas of Central Europe (as shown in the map above), Germanics were in the area of southwestern Scandinavia and Denmark:
After centuries, Celts were able to expand throughout Europe until they became dominant in many parts of Europe (shown in the green areas) by the rise of the Roman empire. Germanic people only slowly started to expand.
Centuries later, close to the end of the Roman empire Germanic tribes make a rapid expansion:
^ Of course all this above has nothing to do with the simple fact that all indigenous Europeans were 'white' long before such expansions of these 'barbarian' tribes.
So as you can see, I just presented a very brief summary of populations in Europe. This is real history and TRUTH and not some make-believe black indigenes of Europe that Marc would have you think. LOLPosts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who you calling backward? You people were out of it until black red and yellow people brought you on board.
Egypt & Levant taught Greece Indian & Islamic civ (incl Mali) schooled western & central Europe China informed Europe via Silk Route trade
Only after 1400 CE did Europe enter the trade network that linked Africa, India, and Asia.
Like the blood thirsty covetous barbarians so many of your people are all you did was take China's explosive powder and the Maghreb's guns and use them to subdue people who had been networking for over a millenium.
And you put on your best KKK white sheet coming here talking about people being EVEN MORE BACKWARD THAN AFRICANS.
You're the one who needs a psych. But don't go alone. Take all your buddies who jumped on the black posters to this thread and ignored your extreme racialist comment, their mental state is EVEN MORE ABBERANT THAN YOURS. Because in not calling you out they revealed that deep down inside they too believe Africans inferior regardless of how they otherwise so loudly crow here.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrann0saurus: ... Native Americans, Melanesians, Australian aborigines, or Polynesians doing anything comparable. They are perfectly proud of their real ancestors even though they were often even more backward than Africans. It seems that the only people of color with your mentality are a noisy handful of African-Americans with grudges against white people.
My conjecture is that it's some variety of coping with personal self-hatred. If I were a black American, I would be perfectly satisfied with the actual black African civilizations we know exist (not to mention yet-unknown ones whose ruins still lie overgrown in the jungle or swallowed by desert sands), yet you and your fellow Afrocentrics aren't, as if they weren't good enough for you. You appear to think that Africans must have been responsible for Eurasian and Mesoamerican civilizations to be great. That sounds like the mind of a self-hating Oreo, not a self-satisfied black man.
You might want to see a psychiatrist about your self-hating slave mentality.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its interesting to see "which posters are attacked by certain other posters" and "who can post about who and get/or not get warned" in this thread and really in this forum.
I have to say, this forum is a psychiatrists dildo.
Posts: 35 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
alTakruri wrote with reference to the 65 million year old dude who's been left out of the equation:
''You're the one who needs a psych. But don't go alone. Take all your buddies who jumped on the black posters to this thread and ignored your extreme racialist comment, their mental state is EVEN MORE ABBERANT THAN YOURS. Because in not calling you out they revealed that deep down inside they too believe Africans inferior regardless of how they otherwise so loudly crow here.''
Conspicuous by their absence weren't they. Looks like the ''good ol' boy'' network.
T-Rex said this: ''Well guess what---making up fantasies and deluding yourself about black Olmecs, black Olmecs, and black Shang will not make you hate yourself less. It only makes you look like a fool and gets everyone else to hate you more.''
I'm wondering where the 'delusion' is on this Olmec thing.
I'm still trying to grasp how it is those statues can't be reconciled with a SubSaharan phenotype without throwing the Mayans in the mix to water it down. Given T-Rex's racial apprehensions about the straightforward appearance of the statues and not seeing anything but presumed (his)? Mayan appearance I can't come up with anything other than what I see. It looks to me like someone's in denial here. How the statues got there I don't have a clue. Yet they are. And using dismissal as an explanation to make them disappear is, well, troubling. Not troubling in the sense of simple commentary, but troubling in the sense it's effed up. (Street talk drives home the point so some can understand better.) No amount of hand-wringing and flailing the arms ain't gonna do the trick; you might stir up some of that flim flam sauce and chicken leg stuff I speak about.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone used the word "redundant" to express material presented in this thread repeatedly. That same person said something like (and I can't find the quote but it was made yesterday) that when this thread has reached its 54th page that the truth that (paraphrase) whites have always been in Europe will remain. Something like that. Does anyone know where that can be found? In any case that same individual (and his friend) between them presented these pictures [that I made comments to]
They spoke about the redundancy found here. Despite the fact the pictures are irrelevant, I counted and the first picture-article was posted by the pair 10 times so far and between them the map was presented 17 times. This may not be a case of the pot calling the kettle black but it is what it is.
Now, someone above wrote a few posts above: “As the glaciers melt, they expand into other parts of Europe.”
POINT: This isn’t accurate. It’s implied that these people “behind” the glaciers who went “southwest” were white. But, a Russian scientist writes of those people “behind” the glacier that they were African types (and here is the page to show those African types: http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/05-09-05.html )
Here is the comment he made:
Speaking of skeletal remains found in Sungir and other Paleolithic sites near Moscow, in his Harvard lectures, V. P. Alexeev wrote: “The nose is very broad, similar to African or Australian. This strong development around the nose is not typical for Europoid but is similar to East African populations.”
Geraldine Reinhart-Waller, The Alekseev 1990 Harvard Manuscript: Peoples and Cultures of the Soviet Union and Archaeology of the USSR.
… and here is a dynamic map to show how the glacier retreated. The Africans were behind it and they became the African Sami who where whitened by the influx of Germanic peoples during late Medieval times.
A closing comment. I’d said that whites weren’t in Europe until after 1800 BC and then in miniscule numbers. That the proto-Italians began a sustained unflux near 800 BC and the Germanic peoples making their first entrance near the time of Christ followed by the Migration Period. Someone noted I was wrong and that I’d said whites were from the Steppes not in Europe. He said Eurasia is in Europe and I accepted the fact in the last few days admitting I was wrong.
BUT, ABOVE, he writes that I am still saying that whites were never in Europe. This is not true and he knows it.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:It’s implied that these people “behind” the glaciers who went “southwest” were white. But, a Russian scientist writes of those people “behind” the glacier that they were African types (and here is the page to show those African types: http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/05-09-05.html )
Here is the comment he made:
Speaking of skeletal remains found in Sungir and other Paleolithic sites near Moscow, in his Harvard lectures, V. P. Alexeev wrote: “The nose is very broad, similar to African or Australian. This strong development around the nose is not typical for Europoid but is similar to East African populations.”
Well, Paleolithic Europeans may not have looked white, but what you have trouble understanding is that they evolved into what we know identify as white people. The facial features of a population can change with thousands of years! Again, all genetic evidence suggests that white Europeans are the descendents of these "Africoid" Paleolithic peoples!
Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Do you find it unbelievable that black people could evolve into white people? If so, how do you explain white people to begin with?
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: I'm still trying to grasp how it is those statues can't be reconciled with a SubSaharan phenotype
What proof do you have that those statues portray a Sub-Saharan phenotype? In my opinion, it is most parsimonious to assume they represent a variation in the Native American phenotype. We know Africans vary by facial features, why not Native Americans?
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, Paleolithic Europeans may not have looked white,
Since there were no white people in the Paleolithic it is by definition a moot point to attempt to account for whiteness in terms of ancient migrations.
The bases of this intellectually plodding thread - is a failure to understand this.
The assumption is archtypical racialism - in which race typology is static, therefore whites must have always existed and replaced non white populations.
The reality of biology is that phenotype is variable and subject to adaptation and selection.
White peoples are descendant from Black Africans who lost some of their skin color when they migrated out of the tropics, and then became leucoderm [white] in the mesolithic ice ages in Europe.
Whiteness is a skin color condition that evolved, not a race that migrated.
But go on and continue your 19th century conversations about a topic the understanding of which has been completely revolutionised in the late 20th and early 21st century.
The primary point being demonsrated in the thread is one of slow and obstinent learning.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
This map is relevant because it shows us where Eurpeans come from.....
This study is relevant because it explains where white skin comes from...
^ The map and study provided answer your thread question in entirety.
Your comments to the contrary are relevant only to your inability to understand them, refute them, or address them in and intelligible manner.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Still don't get this phenomenon with the obsession of blonde, blue eys and pale skin. But even TODAY most(majority)southern Europeans ARE dark skinned, dark/black haired and dark eyes. Even the Greeks per the above comment noted that these traits are "uncommon" to them. So approx 60 Bc the Greeks were stilled "mixed"
Hmm your slithering in the Eurocentric classification of the world, who is a true white and who is not? Or the other way around who is a true Negro and who is it not? Or like more recent discussions on this board are Egyptians true Africans?
A true Negro?
A true Negro? Posts: 16 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
The person who introduced the above pictures said that this thread was filled with redundancy. However, he himself, when I first counted, redundantly posted these pictures 10 and 17 times respectively. Others have been accused of this redundancy but he has posted them yet again and now his own redundancy is up to 11 and 18 times respectively.
And the remain irrelevant (and redundant) as the thread has focused on the entry of whites into Europe - but that was narrowed to Western Europe. The posts are irrelevant for the reasons stated on the two-picture page above.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
[Ty writes] Well, Paleolithic Europeans may not have looked white, but what you have trouble understanding is that they evolved into what we know identify as white people. The facial features of a population can change with thousands of years! Again, all genetic evidence suggests that white Europeans are the descendents of these "Africoid" Paleolithic peoples!
[Marc writes] No problem with the process of black turning to white. But, you Ty, were the inspiration for the following page showing that today's whites are IndoEuropean speakers - right? And they came from the Steppes to Anatolia (where the IE language is traced - there are obscurities). And from there to West Europe. Whites entered Western Europe as the map below shows, in very, very recent times. Not even going back beyond 2000 BC into Western Europe.
You claim that Blacks are trying to take away the history of the Greeks and native Americans. This is a bold face lie. There are no native Americans claiming the Olmec civilization (if there is please name the group now)--in fact these people clearly see the civilization as a civilization of "Negroes". If you would study native American history, you would know that the Aztec and Maya know and claim their own history.
You claim Blacks are trying to steal the history of the Greeks. This is also a lie. Greeco-Roman literature make it clear that the original civilization in Greece was founded by the Pelasgians, who the Greeks admit were not of the same ethnic group. The Greeks also admit that much of their civilization and culture came from Egypt. The evidence makes it clear that since the Native Americans and the Greeks do not claim the ancient history of the places they presently live , Afro-Americans can not be stealing anyone's history.
Are you kidding me??
Of course Greeks claim their own history, and so do Native Americans. That was a low attempt to justify your wild theories Dr winters, just go to greek sites and you'll see how proud nationalists they are. LOL this guy is funny Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. 2Sleepy. Those are extremely late statues and are of relatively recent migrants from the Steppes via Anatolia into Italy. I will put up a new web page showing the migration pattern if you wish.
All the best,
Marc
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Of course Greeks claim their own history, and so do Native Americans. That was a low attempt to justify your wild theories Dr winters, just go to greek sites and you'll see how proud nationalists they are. LOL this guy is funny
[Marc writes] But, Yonis. The earliest Greeks were African! Check the images out. Now, whites do appear in Greek art but this is largely after Alexander's masacres and the ethnic cleansing of the Phoenicians; and also after he sold 10,000 Africans into slavery while murdering over 2000 of the leading citizens (Phoenician / African) in Sidon.
Can I put a map up for you showing the stage-by-stage movement over thousands of years through Bulgaria from the Steppes before the European-to-be populations reached Greece. Please let me know if you want me to do this.
But, to keep the focus – this thread is about the recent appearance of whites to Western Europe.
Best regards,
Marc
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: You dare come to a site were the African origin of the Egyptians is regraded as fact and attempt to get Black people to follow your guidiance in not researching and writing about the actual history of Blacks which include the discussion of the ancient African diaspora.
Well, claiming non-African civilizations as African does nothing for actual African history. If you want to study African history, look at actual African civilizations. There's plenty to go around, and probably more that archaeology will later uncover.
quote:You claim that Blacks are trying to take away the history of the Greeks and native Americans.
The average African-American probably doesn't even care that much about history, let alone your perversion of it. Americans of all colors are infamous for the shallowness of their historical and political understanding. For Chrissakes, you'd be surprised at the number of Americans (white, black, red, etc.) who would have difficulty locating certain countries on the globe.
quote:There are no native Americans claiming the Olmec civilization (if there is please name the group now)--in fact these people clearly see the civilization as a civilization of "Negroes".
Please quote me a source suggesting that many US Natives attribute Olmec civilization to blacks.
quote:Greeco-Roman literature make it clear that the original civilization in Greece was founded by the Pelasgians, who the Greeks admit were not of the same ethnic group.
Well, that the foundation of Aegean civilization had non-Greek roots (e.g. Crete) is indisputable right now. However, what makes you think these Pelasgians were "African"? They could have been Asian-looking for all we know.
quote:The Greeks also admit that much of their civilization and culture came from Egypt.
I do not deny Egyptian influence on Greek civilization (there is also SW Asian influence which is not as heavily examined). That is not the same as claiming the Ancient Greeks were black (if that is what you are indeed saying).
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes to both pictures. That IS the point. East Africans are unmixed ie indegenous Africans. Both types, per your pictures, have existed in Africa thousands of years WITHOUT ADMIXTURE.
And YES, I sometimes slip into these old world classification. Just getting used to "no races"... .ethnic groups. So based on these new difinitions the Ancient (Original) Greeks seems to be ethnically recent africans with the E3b Y haplo group lineage.
Infact ancient medit/southern Europeans were, probably, some may say assuredly, of African lineage being part of the African sphere(diaspora) of influence.
Southern Europe were the "stomping" ground of E3b and maybe E3a(agriedude study) for thousand of years until recently ie 1000bc
quote:Originally posted by tooSleepy:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Still don't get this phenomenon with the obsession of blonde, blue eys and pale skin. But even TODAY most(majority)southern Europeans ARE dark skinned, dark/black haired and dark eyes. Even the Greeks per the above comment noted that these traits are "uncommon" to them. So approx 60 Bc the Greeks were stilled "mixed"
Hmm your slithering in the Eurocentric classification of the world, who is a true white and who is not? Or the other way around who is a true Negro and who is it not? Or like more recent discussions on this board are Egyptians true Africans?
A true Negro?
A true Negro?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
The magic of Los Tuxtlas It's always witching hour in villages of Veracruz state Dai Huynh, Houston Chronicle
Sunday, October 1, 2006
(10-01) 04:00 PDT Catemaco, Mexico -- The witch is cloaked in a black gown with a Chinese yin-and-yang sign, representing the moon and sun. Dark and light.
Through lace curtains, a shaft of light casts an eerie glow onto the altar. A spindly, wooden red devil dominates the table, towering over the potbellied Hindu elephant deity Lord Ganesha and statuettes of Merlin, Buddha and Shiva.
This is the room where Ignacio Cobix casts spells of life and death, love and spite.
His timber house is a block from Lake Catemaco, where Mexicans come for boating, fishing, bird-watching and spiritual cleansing. Catemaco is one of three major villages in the Los Tuxtlas region, south of the port of Veracruz. Like neighboring San Andres Tuxtla and Santiago Tuxtla, Catemaco is shaped by virescent volcanoes and magic realism. Here, hexes and blessings are muttered in the same breath.
Myths and legends flourish as lushly as the water lilies in the lagoon: Tales of water spirits. Tales of la Virgen del Carmen. Tales of the devil.
"You have bad energy around you," Cobix tells me in Spanish. "You need a cleansing."
Tonight is supposedly ideal for an aura cleansing. The magic will be strong when midnight ushers in the most important day of the year for the residents of Los Tuxtlas.
"The people believe that the first Friday in March is the first day of creation, the first Friday in history," local anthropologist and raconteur Raymundo Gonzales says. "It's a potent day for magic. All the high witches are here for the gathering tonight."
Every year, witches convene for the annual Brujos Convention in Catemaco, an area many regard as the center of magic.
Mexicans believe there are three types of magic: black, white and red. Curanderos practice white or red magic, using plants or the spiritual world to heal. Most feared are the brujos, or brujas if female, who practice black magic.
Curanderos, or shamans, are bound by the law of nature and karma to never do harm. But brujos, the powerful witches, answer to a darker creed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Brujos can put curses on people. They make bad things happen, and from what I've seen, it works," says John Todd, a Houstonian who lives in Veracruz. "In Mexico, there are three levels of illnesses. The first is spiritual. The second is emotional, such as sadness, and the third is physical. In the United States, people turn to doctors and pills to treat physical illnesses. But they don't treat the emotional and spiritual. Mexicans believe you must treat all three."
I had asked my guide, Andres Huesca Tapia, to find a brujo. He laughed, pointing to the young men on dusty motorcycles zooming up and down the road to Catemaco.
"Pick one," he said. "Those men are roving billboards for the brujos. They're everywhere."
Now we find ourselves in a waiting room, commanded by a woman with ebony eyes. She introduces herself as Ignacio Cobix's confidante, housekeeper and mother.
"I knew from the start my son was gifted," she says. "A mother just knows these things. Even Mel Gibson came seeking his advice. He was in Catemaco, filming a movie about the Maya. You wouldn't recognize him, unshaven with a thick black beard. I didn't care for it. But I recognized his eyes. He has beautiful blue eyes."
Almost everyone in Catemaco claims that Gibson "was here." And maybe he was. It's a dime-size town, divided by winding roads and houses with peeling paint. At the center of social activities is Lago de Catemaco, a massive bowl of water formed millions of years ago by now-extinct volcanoes. With peaks poking through gray mists, the sierra casts a familiar, if eerie, aura over steel-blue water.
I am sitting on a creaking chair, waiting for the brujo. Minutes later, a young man with puppy eyes walks out of a side room and waves us inside. Sitting behind a writing desk is the gran brujo, sober and boyish in appearance.
"A brujo can never marry," his mother had told me earlier. "My son can have relationships, two at the same time if he wishes. But he can never wear gold jewelry. Ever."
Gold is a symbol of vanity. Wearing it would anger the spirits and drain him of his power.
Where he's most powerful, Cobix says, is in his cave, about an hour's boat ride across the lake. Last year, German journalists filmed him there, performing a ritual. He shows pictures of the cave, surrounded by vines.
Caves are cradles of mysteries. According to local legend, the devil's cave is somewhere in Los Tuxtlas. It leads from the real world to the world of the dead.
"We can go there," Cobix says. "I'll charge only 2,000 pesos. Usually it's more."
Seeing my stunned look, my guide intercedes and tells Cobix that I can't pay $200.
Cobix nods his head, understanding, but doesn't budge, so we leave.
"Come back tomorrow," he says on our way out the door. "I'll do an aura cleansing. You need it. Normally I charge people 300 pesos. For you, 200 pesos."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Catemaco cools at night. The mountain air fans the boisterous crowds at the Brujos Convention at a park outside town. Onstage, dark-eyed beauties in beaded Aztec costumes perform songs and dances. Their male partners glisten with energy, stomping across the stage with bravado. The music continues well past the witching hour.
Wispy white tents flank the stage, belonging to various brujos, sages and curanderos. Aside from a few dollars for parking, entrance to the festival is free.
"Spiritual cleansings cost 100 pesos," says the gate attendant, "the same as tarot readings."
I opt to scout the stalls, where charms are sold. Rabbit's feet. Horseshoes. Coyote talismans. Leather bracelets. Jet amulets. Clay totems. Red pillows for love and good luck.
"Witchcraft is a corrupted word," my guide says. "When the Spaniards arrived, they converted wishcraft into witchcraft. It's not so much witchery as wishing for something."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The next day we drive to Santiago Tuxtla, nearer Veracruz. We pass tobacco fields in San Andres Tuxtla, where tourists can visit one of several factories to see how the large, floppy leaves are cured and rolled into prized cigars. With its serene, bone-white colonial main square, Santiago Tuxtla attracts those curious about El Negro, an ancient Olmec sacrificial stone believed to channel powers.
El Negro is only one reason to visit this old village, where men pass the afternoon beneath swaying coconut trees, playing cards. David Lida, an author based in Mexico who wrote about the witches of Los Tuxtlas, had suggested that I call on an ancient woman known as Doña Julia. Of all the brujos, she had made an impression on Lida.
But first, El Negro and Shirley MacLaine.
"Shirley MacLaine was here. She heard about its power. She wept when she placed her thumb on El Negro's forehead," says museum director Juan Jose Palagot Perea, standing in front of the oblong stone sculpture with a flat, almost baby face.
I've heard many versions of this story. Some people say the New Age guru-actress actually lay on El Negro, face up with her arms to the side for full effect.
"No, no, she didn't do that," Palagot says, chuckling. "She simply placed her thumb here."
He directs me to put my left thumb about an inch from El Negro and close my eyes.
Seconds later, darkness is colored by pulsating red light. I feel lightheaded. And in my mind's eye I am flying high above mountains. Are these images induced by sunlight pouring from a window overhead? I can't be sure.
My guide, Andres, is next. Descended from Aztecs, he has high cheekbones and tanned features framed by lustrous, long, inky curls. A former professor, he traded his job in Mexico City for the slower pace of a small fishing island in Veracruz.
Andres starts to cry, a quiet shower that lasts five minutes before he opens his eyes. Embarrassed, or overwhelmed, he turns, waving us away.
"I'm sorry, so sorry" he says. "This is too much. I need to go outside to get some air."
When Andres returns, the museum director smiles and nods his head knowingly. "I didn't tell you beforehand what you might see because I wanted you to discover for yourself," he says. "Some people see the color red, others pyramids. Some even sense they're flying over a great expanse of hills back in time. And others see a cave with a man, El Negro or one of the ancients."
Leaving the museum, I spot another Olmec stone head in the main square. It's a colossal figurehead with a helmet over flat, jaguar-like features and bulbous lips. Even now, this ancient civilization, the oldest in Mexico, has a hold on the people of Veracruz.
As we wave goodbye to the museum director, I remember to ask about Doña Julia.
"Ah, yes, she was one of the greats. But she's no longer here," he says. "She died last year."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For several months, Gibson and his crew shot the Maya epic "Apocalypto" near Nanciyaga. The movie set was still up when we drove into the private nature reserve. It's easy to see why Gibson chose this dew-drenched rain forest on the northern shore of Lake Catemaco. Nanciyaga is one of those places where you can be one with nature but not in the wild. The reserve is riotously lush with native fauna, a rain forest with the luxury of a restaurant and nearly rustic cabins for $75 per night, which includes mud facials, mineral baths, boating and other activities. Nanciyaga attracts Mexican crooners and movie stars seeking to renew mind and spirit.
"People come here to be close to nature," guide Agustín Rafael Dominguez says. "But they also want to be spiritually healed. Magic is a tradition we have had for generations. We were told magic exists. Some people don't believe. It's not the magic they see in the movies. It's more about the aura, the energy between nature and man. Herbs and plants have the ability to cleanse us, cure us. Why is that so hard to grasp?"
Eager to illustrate his point, he takes me to the wooden hut of Asunción Ixtepan, one of three white shamans who perform aura cleansings, or limpias, at Nanciyaga.
Dressed in a flowing white dress against the jungle backdrop, Ixtepan exudes Mother Earth. She directs me to follow her through a beaded curtain into the hut, where there is an altar laden with colorful pictures of saints and wooden crosses. I feel at ease, unlike the sensation that washed over me when the brujo Cobix performed the aura cleansing. Warmth rather than dampness. Lightness rather than weight. Cobix had rubbed an egg over my arms, neck and head, then brushed a long bundle of leaves over my body while whispering an incantation that I couldn't make out. Afterward, he instructed me to throw the egg on the side of the road to get rid of the malady. He took the 200 pesos, then sent me on my way.
Ixtepan turns me to her. She places her hands on my head. Warmth radiates from her to me. A mother's womb. She starts to pray:
"Father, Son and the Holy Ghost, please protect her, give her a house, food and a job. Let nothing go amiss in her household. Remove all bad spirits. Luck be with her."
She finishes by brushing herbs and citrus leaves along my back and shoulders. The leaves feel soft and cool. Their heady fragrance makes me think that perhaps this is something like aromatherapy or herbal medicine.
"Now, be strong and go in peace," says Ixtepan, placing an herb-filled amulet in my hands.
Life is ironic. I learned later that the picture on the amulet is of St. Ignatius, in Spanish Ignacio, the same as the brujo Cobix.
From San Francisco, a number of airlines offer one-stop, connecting flights to Veracruz. In Veracruz, rent a car or ride the bus to Los Tuxtlas. The ADO first-class bus makes daily runs to Santiago Tuxtla and Catemaco for about $8. For schedules, go to www.ticketbus.com.mx/ticketbus.
When to go
The ideal time to visit is November through April, after the hottest, rainiest weather has passed.
Where to stay
Hotel La Finca, Catemaco. 011-52-294-947-9710, www.lafinca.com.mx. Air-conditioned, comfortable rooms with terrace view of Lake Catemaco. It has a pool, but it's a long walk to town. $70-$125.
Hotel Playa Azul, Catemaco. 011-52-294-943-0001, e-mail hotelplayaazul@prodigy.net.mx. Lush gardens; clean, standard rooms. $70-$80.
Hotel Castellanos, Santiago Tuxtla. 011-52-294-947-0300. Neatly kept, air-conditioned rooms; sweeping vistas of surrounding mountains. Small restaurant serves tasty, regional dishes at reasonable prices. Doubles about $45.
What to do
Guided tours. The state tourism office in Veracruz's main square can help arrange guided tours to Los Tuxtlas. One recommendation is Martin Sandoval, who speaks English and Spanish; e-mail martintour5@hotmail.com.
Nanciyaga, www.nanciyaga.com. Commercial nature reserve on Lake Catemaco, founded by a veterinarian with a love for animals and nature. His son, Carlos Manuel Rodriguez Mourino, now runs the 99-acre jungle park (the set for Sean Connery's movie "Medicine Man"). Consult a shaman or take a curative temazcal steam bath. Boating expeditions and jungle hikes can be arranged. General admission $3. "Aura cleansing" $10, "temazcal" (2 1/2 hours including mineral bath with fresh flowers, followed by dinner) $35.
Isla de los Monos. Tiny Island of the Monkeys can be reached by boat from the shore of Catemaco. Home to boisterous colony of fish-eating monkeys, brought from Thailand by biologists hoping to study them. Worthwhile boat tours of Lake Catemaco cost $5-$10 per person, depending on your bargaining skills. Museo Regional Tuxteco, Santiago Tuxtla. Regal colonial building; impressive display of pre-Columbian artifacts and "El Negro," one of many Olmec displays. 9 a.m.-6 p.m. Mondays-Saturdays, 9 a.m.-3 p.m. Sundays. $3.
El Salto de Eyipantla. Waterfall thundering over small, rocky cliff near the Rio Grande de Catemaco. The 50-foot-high waterfall can be reached by descending a staircase of about 200 steps, allowing visitors to get up close (and wet). Open daily. Admission about 50 cents.
quote: The average African-American probably doesn't even care that much about history, let alone your perversion of it. Americans of all colors are infamous for the shallowness of their historical and political understanding. For Chrissakes, you'd be surprised at the number of Americans (white, black, red, etc.) who would have difficulty locating certain countries on the globe.
You don't know anything about Afro-Americans if you did you would know that they are very interested in ancient history, like the African origin of the Egyptians; and they accept the fact that the Olmec heads are of Black people.
LOS ANGELES -- African-American activists criticized the Board of Supervisors Tuesday for allowing a King Tut exhibition at the county Museum of Art, saying that renderings of the boy king as white are inaccurate.
The "Tutankhamun and the Golden Age of the Pharoahs" exhibit opens a four-city, nationwide tour at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art on June 16. Among the installations are three busts of Tut II reconstructed from the boy king's mummified corpse.
All of the busts, fashioned by three groups of researchers, show Tut as a caucasoid North African. That representation led to Tuesday's protest by about a dozen speakers, who asked that the busts be removed from the exhibit.
"There is no evidence that King Tut was white," Compton City Attorney Legrand Clegg told the board. "Egypt is on the continent of Africa."
The activists made their comments at the end of the public meeting.
No specific actions were taken by the board, but Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite, who is African-American, did ultimately address the speakers' concerns.
"We cannot go in there and change the exhibit," Burke said.
The county's agreement with the art museum does not provide for control over program content or exhibits, she said.
Burke said taxpayer money was not provided for the exhibit, and that efforts were under way by local groups to challenge Tut's racial ancestry as depicted in the busts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Images: NBC News Slideshow Images: NBC4.tv Slideshows Copyright 2005 by NBC4.tv. City News
. .
quote:
A noted actor whose roles have ranged from Paul Robeson to Othello to Malcolm X, Avery Brooks (left) will star as King Lear in a production he collaborated on for two years with acclaimed director Harold Scott (right). web page
Yale Rep stages a 'King Lear' for the ages
"King Lear" director Harold and lead actor Avery Brooks believe their production at the Yale Repertory Theatre may make theatrical history. To the best of their knowledge, the Yale production of the Shakespeare play marks the first time in this country it has ever been directed by an African-American director with an all-black cast. (See related story.)
However, Scott and Brooks say that the cast was not selected to make a statement about race in any contemporary sense but rather, to link both the timeless themes of Shakespeare's tragedy with a specific time in history and to explore the meaning of such links for subsequent generations of people. The two collaborators set their production of "King Lear" in the ancient Olmec civilization in Mexico in order to place "a primal play in a primeval time," says Brooks, noting that the early, pre-Christian civilization was likely comprised of brown-skinned people representing a convergence of cultures, including African.
In Shakespeare's tale of a family torn apart and ultimately destroyed, the themes of parenthood, the end of a family line, love, greed and power can be connected in fascinating ways to the ancient Olmec civilization, which itself came to an end, say Scott and Brooks.
"The idea was to do a 'Lear' where we could talk about an ancient civilization -- one that was not made up -- and not impose a culture on the piece but rather to select a culture that would match it," explains Brooks. He became fascinated with the Olmecs several decades ago after reading Ivan Van Sertima's scholarly study "They Came Before Columbus," in which the author argues that Africans were among the early peoples in Mesoamerica. Sertima points out that the colossal stone heads that are the relics of the Olmec civilization bear African features.
Brooks, who has collaborated with Scott on numerous theatrical productions and was his faculty colleague at Rutgers University's Mason Gross School of the Arts, passed the book on to the director. Scott, in turn, became interested in the African-Olmec link.
Once the two decided to produce a "King Lear" set in the Olmec civilization, they did meticulous research about the ancient people so that their production -- from basic props such as spears to the costumes and scenery -- would fit what is actually known about the culture. Some of the props, including authentic Zulu spears, were shipped to campus from faraway places.
"The main thing I had to work out directorially was -- while there are all of these magnificent Olmec archaeological remains -- I needed to know about behavior: how the Olmec lived, what they ate and what they wore," explains Scott.
He found the answers to some of his questions in books by Olmec scholars Michael Coe, the C. J. MacCurdy Professor of Anthropology Emeritus at Yale, and Clyde A. Winters. He learned through these scholarly investigations that the Olmec were a militaristic people -- a fact that, Scott believes, was also a nice tie to "King Lear."
Likewise, the two said that the cosmological elements of Shakespeare's work fit meaningfully with Olmec civilization and other early cultures.
"[In Shakespeare's work] there are so many references to the movement of the heavens, and in this culture -- and in African and other non-Western cultures, even that of American Indians -- there is this same cosmology, this same focus on the stars and on the spirit," comments Brooks.
Most dramatic is the symbolic connection that can be made between Shakespeare's tale of the end of a family lineage and the "vanishing" of a once-flourishing people, says Scott, pointing out that the Bard's drama begins with the king's festive decision to divide his kingdom among his three daughters and ends with the entire family dead.
"Lear and his family were the end of a particular line," comments Scott. "He has no male heirs, so his family presumably did not go on directly. But we know in Mesoamerica that there are still brown, red and yellow people: There are still people there. So my conception theatrically was that a family, or a culture, may be the end of a particular line, but other lines have come. My dream, of course, is that other lines will continue to come."
It is for this reason that Scott has placed a huge Olmec head, resembling the colossal stone relics in Mexico, in the center of the stage.
"It is the first thing the audience will see when they come in and the last thing they will see when they leave," notes Scott. "Emblematically, it was my way of making the point that some lines will vanish and other lines will come, but the Olmec heads -- the relics of a particular existence -- will still be there and still be honored."
Despite its unusual setting, Scott and Brooks note, their production remains a Shakespearean work in the purist sense.
"We have this African-American company, but we have no interest in calling this production a 'black Lear,'" says Brooks. "To do Shakespeare is to do Shakespeare; it doesn't matter what color it is. One of the challenges is to introduce to people the idea that African people most probably were here [in the Western hemisphere] and doing things long before the Europeans, which says something in our culture -- to our children -- that's critically important. But this is still Shakespeare, still 'King Lear' and all that that entails."
For Brooks, playing the role of the tormented king is a pivotal moment in his career and an experience that requires intense emotional investment.
"You have to 'live' Lear -- that's the only way to do it," says the actor. "It is very draining."
For Scott, the production brings him back to a play that he says he has "lived with" for some 40-plus years, having played the title role when he was 23 years old.
"It has all come back to me vividly," says the director, "including all of the emotional pain that comes with playing such a role."
Scott and Brooks hope the audiences at the Yale Rep will be moved both by the performance and by their unique twist in the setting of the classic work.
"I would want to see this not because it's never been done before [with an all-black cast led by a black director]," says Brooks. "I'd want to see it no matter what, because ultimately, what this play, this production, is about is life."
posted
Don't want to go OT but. . . .Very good line of argument - -NAME ONE NATIVE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT CLAIM THE OLMECS.
Never thought about it that way. Are their any? we all know phenotype can be misleading.
If no "tribes" claim it then who's is it and when and where did it come from.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ xyyman Yes the presence of E3b in Greece is very interesting but this also counts for the high frequencies of Haplogroup J & Q Greece has.
@Mr.Washington I think I understand your standpoint. But I see the subject out of a different perspective. Eventually all humans are descendant of Africans regardless if some people like to hear it or not. Ultimately our physical body was forged in Africa. So at one point in history all humans had an African appearance. But where is the problem in saying that Asians, Europeans or other Human populations developed out of their originally ancient African settler forefathers into populations with individual physical attributes as a process of mutation and adaptation? I mean they did not all crawl out under a rock fron nowhere.
I will give you an example of this the so called Cheddar Man from Somerset England is a 9000 year old human skeleton. Cheddar Man was determined to have belonged to a branch of mitochondrial haplogroup U, a haplogroup which is especially common in Britain, Ireland and the Basque Country of northern Spain and south western France. Haplogroup U which descended from Haplogroup R which descended from Haplogroup N and N is a direct African linage. So as you can see just a process of adaptation and mutation over a time period of 40000 years!
Cheddar Man A reconstruction was also commissioned to be used as a comparison if a genetic descendant could be found. Numerous people, all long-standing inhabitants of the area, were tested. Then in 1996, a local history teacher, Adrian Targett, was approached to see if he and his students would be interested in participating in the project. Adrian and thirteen of his students had DNA extracted from the inside of their cheeks for testing. Then in March 1997, it was announced that a genetic descendant of Cheddar Man had been discovered - the local history teacher Adrian Targett. When compared with the reconstruction, there are some remarkable similarities between Adrian and Cheddar Man, although Adrian is clean-shaven and his hair is better kempt than his great (times three hundred) grandfather.This modern connection to Cheddar Man (who died at least three thousand years before agriculture began in Britain) makes very credible the theory that modern-day Britons are not all descended from Middle-Eastern migratory farmers, but rather modern Britons are descended from ancient European Palaeolithic and Mesolithic hunter-gatherer tribes who much later on adopted farming. Adrian Targett with Forefather Posts: 16 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tooSleepy: Yes the presence of E3b in Greece is very interesting but this also counts for the high frequencies of Haplogroup J & Q Greece has
^ It traces the history of the flow of civilisation from Africa to SouthWest Asia to Europe - is what it does.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Still_Not_Done: It seems the below statement has been willfully ignored by a certain cabal of yes men/parrots.
I certainly hope you don't mean me, but then again I have no doubt this is who you're referring to since your moronic paranoid self has attacked me with that name before. By the way, Rasol who I "parrot" is a black man why by the way is not from the Horn.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrann0saurus: They are perfectly proud of their real ancestors even though they were often even more backward than Africans.
So I will ask what are your thoughts about the above? Anyone can answer. [/QUOTE] Actually I missed this post by T-rex, since I haven't even payed attention to any of his posts.
But now that you and Takruri have brought it to attention...
T-rex, what is the meaning of this transgression? After all the time you've spent on this forum you still retain the racist view that Africans are "backwards"??! And what are we to make of Europeans whose civilizations date later than those of Africa and are not as numerous??
Also the very use of the description "backwards" is part of Eurocentric doctrine # 3:
STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT DOCTRINE: The assumption that "primitive" cultures represent lower "stages" in historical evolution, and have yet to attain advanced forms of culture. One English scholar referred to "the child-races of Africa." Usually, social hierarchy, militarization and industrialization are taken as prime measures of "advanced" civilization. In the 19th century, scholars openly used the terms "savage," "barbarian," "civilized." Though these offensive words have (mostly) been dropped, the underlying assumptions are still quite influential. (For a good discussion of how the insistence on talking about "tribes" distorts African history, see http://www.africaaction.org/bp/ethall.htm. )
I'm sure those groups of people who have not developed cultures you deem to be more 'sophisticated' would appreciate such a label.
Also, I am starting to notice that you seem to take Marc's nonsense a little too seriously! Does it bother that much that Marc (just one nut) makes all these ludicrous claims to deprive you of your European heritage?? Are you aware that whites have been doing exactly that for centuries but unlike Marc, have actually been getting away with it?!
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. Or very young . . . or naive? 
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic