posted
The Bass advises Clyde Winters and Marc Washington to really get their act together. Please proves unequivocally that:
1) Whites are actually new to Europe with empirical evidence.
2) That the Shang Dynasty in China was populated by blacks
3) That Olmecs were black
4) For Clyde only- prove that biological race exist and give evidence for your continual use of the word Negro and or Negroes.
There no sense in having a long thread of trolling and photoshop material that proves nothing. One thread has close to 1100 posts in it, yet proof was not provided to justify the title of the thread anyays.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Why don't you get your act together. You should know by now you can not prove anything, since belief is based on a person's perspective of what is right and wrong.
As a result, you can only confirm or disconfirm a hypothesis. I have presented an abundance of evidence in support of my propositions. It is up to you to disconfirm my hypotheses.
If you disagree with my research feel free to provide a detailed discussion of the reasons you disagree with my research--with supporting evidence that counters my evidence and we can debate the issues.
Until you meet the basic requirements of the scientific method--remain silent.
1) Whites are NOT actually new to Europe with empirical evidence.
2) That the Shang Dynasty in China was NOT populated by blacks
3) That Olmecs were NOT black
4) For Clyde only- prove that biological race does NOT exist and give evidence for your continual use of the word Negro and or Negroes.
MOST people would be ashamed to demonstrate such a slave era mentality, yet you seem proud of it. It appears that it never occurred to you, that the Masta who educated you, and programed you, might be lying.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
1) Whites are NOT actually new to Europe with empirical evidence.
2) That the Shang Dynasty in China was NOT populated by blacks
3) That Olmecs were NOT black
4) For Clyde only- prove that biological race does NOT exist and give evidence for your continual use of the word Negro and or Negroes.
MOST people would be ashamed to demonstrate such a slave era mentality, yet you seem proud of it. It appears that it never occurred to you, that the Masta who educated you, and programed you, might be lying.
The rules of debate state that who ever makes the claim ha to back it up with empirical evidence. Since Clyde and Marc has made these claims the burden of proof ís on the both of them to prove their claims, not for the Bass to disprove anything.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
1) Whites are NOT actually new to Europe with empirical evidence.
2) That the Shang Dynasty in China was NOT populated by blacks
3) That Olmecs were NOT black
4) For Clyde only- prove that biological race does NOT exist and give evidence for your continual use of the word Negro and or Negroes.
MOST people would be ashamed to demonstrate such a slave era mentality, yet you seem proud of it. It appears that it never occurred to you, that the Masta who educated you, and programed you, might be lying.
The rules of debate state that who ever makes the claim ha to back it up with empirical evidence. Since Clyde and Marc has made these claims the burden of proof ís on the both of them to prove their claims, not for the Bass to disprove anything.
Good Bass. Let's get the debate started. Here is a paper I presented at the Central States Anthropological Association Meeting in 1997. It discussed my decipherment with citations. Since you disagree, please disconfirm my claim.
If you don't want to begin the debate with this paper, why don't we debate the issue of Olmec skeletons: Olmec African Skeletons
Maybe on second thought you may want to discuss the Shang of China. Here is a debate I had with a Chinese scholar on the origins of Chinese writing and the Negro skeletons of China. Check out the information here and let's debate: Shang and Xia Chinese were Africans
Let the debate begin.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Bass, why dont you think the olmecs and Shang were black? Or is it a question of emphasis, that they had black elements but population itself wasnt black.
Winters why do you use Negroid and not Africoid?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bass Wrote: The rules of debate state that who ever makes the claim ha to back it up with empirical evidence. Since Clyde and Marc has made these claims the burden of proof ís on the both of them to prove their claims, not for the Bass to disprove anything.
That is absolutely true. But what you missed while blindly doing this.....
Was that they supplied evidence far superior to anything supplied by those who try to prove the contrary.
Has it ever occurred to you, that the only evidence that White people are indigenous to Europe, is that they say so, and the fact that they are there. Using YOUR logic, should I now call you Geronimo? And; should I STOP arguing that Egyptians were Black?
Then there is your intellectual laziness, your apparent comfort in the lap of the Masta, has robbed you of the ability to even think, much less, activity investigate the issue. If you had, you would have found that even the Mastas own children, have produced volumes of material which supports their position.
As a matter of fact, ALL new studies, except those by the obvious racists, tend to prove their position. But you would never know that: you can't be bothered. You would much rather bask in the Mastas love and approval.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
lyde caught in a lie, he stated that he deciphered the Olmec script using the Mende script, but the Mende script was created long after the Olmec script. And this:
"In conclusion, the Olmec people were called Xi. They did not speak a Mixe-Zoque language they spoke a Mande language, which is the substratum language for many Mexican languages."
Give me a break Clyde, come on, the only person making that claim is you, unless you can show evidence from other peer-reviewed sources that state pre-Columbian Native American languages are closely related to Mande languages.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: Clyde caught in a lie, he stated that he deciphered the Olmec script using the Mende script, but the Mende script was created long after the Olmec script. And this:
"In conclusion, the Olmec people were called Xi. They did not speak a Mixe-Zoque language they spoke a Mande language, which is the substratum language for many Mexican languages."
Give me a break Clyde, come on, the only person making that claim is you, unless you can show evidence from other peer-reviewed sources that state pre-Columbian Native American languages are closely related to Mande languages.
This is not argument Bass this is opinion.
Debate is based on proposition construction and evidence in support of a proposition. I made the proposition that the Olmec writing is of African origin. In support of this I provided evidence that:
1) The Mande script is older than the Olmec writing;
2) Mixe and Mayan languages have a Mande substratum;
3) That Rafinesque in relation to the Mayan inscriptions and Wiener in relation to the Tuxtla monument noted that the scripts were related to African writing a fact I confirmed after comparison;
4) The Mixe languages are related to Malinke-Bambara and the Mixe, like the Maya claim strangers introduced culture to this population;
5) You can read Olmec and Mayan inscriptions using Malinke-Bambara and the Vai script.
Eventhough I have provided this evidence in support of my prositions you present no evidence disputing any of this material. How can we have a debate when you are too ignorant of African and American epigraphy to provide counter evidence disconfirming my propositions.
Please cite your counter evidence. The paper on my decipherment of Olmec was delivered at the Central States Anthro meeting. Before this paper could be presented it went through peer-review by a committee to determine if it was appropriate for presentation at the Conference.
Although this evaluation process took place I am waiting for your citation of any counter evidence disconfirming my theorems.
Shame on you. You make a big deal of argument and then you fail to debate.
Bass I am waiting for your propositions and counter evidence.....
quote:Clyde winters wrote: 1) The Mande script is older than the Olmec writing;
How is this possible? the olmecs lived some 3000 years ago and according to wikipedia (i know a bad source but i'm too lazy now, and the references looks to be in order) The Mande N'Ko is created in 1949, so how can it possibly be older?
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Clyde winters wrote: Although this evaluation process took place I am waiting for your citation of any counter evidence disconfirming my theorems.
Have you ever thought about the possibility that there is no refutation of your work by members of Academia simply because no one takes it seriosuly enough so to engage in any disconformation of your theories? Shouldn't this ring a bell?
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
"In conclusion, the Olmec people were called Xi. They did not speak a Mixe-Zoque language they spoke a Mande language, which is the substratum language for many Mexican languages."
Where's the evidence for this? By xtension you are saying that Meso-American languages are branches of the Niger-Congo language family. Cite one source that states this outside of your hypothesis.
1) The Mande script is older than the Olmec writing;
2) Mixe and Mayan languages have a Mande substratum;
3) That Rafinesque in relation to the Mayan inscriptions and Wiener in relation to the Tuxtla monument noted that the scripts were related to African writing a fact I confirmed after comparison;
4) The Mixe languages are related to Malinke-Bambara and the Mixe, like the Maya claim strangers introduced culture to this population;
5) You can read Olmec and Mayan inscriptions using Malinke-Bambara and the Vai script.[/quote]
Clyde, you have presented no evidence at all, you simply cited yourself without posting additional evidence from peer-reviewed sources. The Mande language script was developed years after the Mayan and Olmec script, are you saying Mayans and Olmecs looked into the future and copied the Mende script? Here#s a link that shows the branches of the Mayan language family, where's the connection to Niger-Congo languages?
In the 1820s Dualu Bukele of Jondu, Liberia, was inspired by a dream to create a writing system from the Vai language. The syllabary proved popular with the Vai and by the end of the 19th century, most of them were using it. In 1962, the Standardization Committee at the University of Liberia standardized the syllabary.
Mende syllabary The Mende syllabary was invented in 1921 by Kisimi Kamara (ca. 1890-1962) of Sierra Leone. Seeing how the British managed to take over his country, Kisimi concluded that their power was partly a result of their literacy. He decided to give his own people that ability. Kisimi claimed he was inspired in a dream to create the Mende syllabary, which he called Ki-ka-ku. During the 1920s and 1930s he run a school in Potoru to teach Ki-ka-ku. The syllabary became a popular method of keeping records and writing letters.
During the 1940s the British set up the Protectorate Literacy Bureau in Bo with the aim of teaching the Mende people to read and write with a version of the Latin alphabet. As a result, usage of Kisimi's syllabary gradually diminished and it was eventually forgotten.
Mende is a Niger-Congo language spoken by about 1.26 million people in Liberia and Sierra Leone.
Come on now Clyde, please tell the forum how the Olmecs and Mayans were able to copy from two language scripts that invented almost two thousand years after the beginning of their civilization. Come on brother, quit being a charlatan and tap out.
Here's your homework Clyde, please post evidence from sources other than yourself that are peer-reviewed that:
1) Demonstrate Mayan and Olmec languages are substrates of Mande
2) Demonstrate that Mayans and Olmecs copied the Vai and Mende scripts which appeared almost 2,000 years after the beginning of Olmec and Mayan civilization.
Time is ticking Clyde, also, please provide evidence validates the use of the term Negro[Negroes] and post evidence that biological race exists.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am a bit dusty with all this, but do our other African scholars agree with you Dr. Winters? I don't recall Van Sertima making the same argument as you re Mande script.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The rules of debate state that who ever makes the claim ha to back it up with empirical evidence. Since Clyde and Marc has made these claims the burden of proof ís on the both of them to prove their claims, not for the Bass to disprove anything.
You are correct.
In terms of the origins of Europeans the following scholars make the following claims supported by evidence from their various disciplines.
* All human beings descend from Africans, including Modern Africans, Asians, Australians, Oceanians, Americans [native], *and* white Europeans too. [Tishkoff, Wells, Keita, Sforza, Underhill]
* Modern Europeans descend in the main directly from Paleolithic Europeans. [Underhill, Wells, Keita, Sforza, Brace]
* The original ancestors of modern Europeans, that is the -indigenous- or 1st Europeans, were not 'leucoderm' or pale skinned. [Jablonski, Sforza, Kittles, Harding]
* Pale skin developed recently among the ancestors of modern European populations between 6 to 12 thousand years ago, in Europe. [Kittles, Shriver, Sforza]
* The original human population was 'melanoderm', Black skinned, and tropically adapted in skeletal form.
* The non black, cold adapted skeletal forms of most Europeans and some Nothern Eurasians are recent evolutionary adaptations - this is why you do not find these traits in the Upper Paleolithic - it's for the same reason you find no humans in the Jurassic [dynosaur] era, because these traits had not yet evolved. [Keita, Stringer, Holliday]
As for Winters, he has decided to go the passive aggressive route and refuse to assert anything, [here where it can be refuted].
Fine.
- Winters claims nothing. - He is then free to dis-claim the above information by the following scholars.
Looking forward to another failed attempt at debating from Winters, Washington and Mike, who simply do not understand modern anthropology and have yet to ever engage the topic in and intelligible manner.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good post rasol, modern Europeans do descend from Paleolithic Europeans, the DNA evidence overwhelmingly supports this. Clyde and Marc are simply associating Indo-European languages with being white, but they fail to realize that Indians and Iranians, who both speak Indo-European languages, are not white and are not European, so their flawed argument has already failed. Europe was already inhabited before the rise of Indo-European langauges and genetic evidence does not suggest a recent colonization of Europe by white people during medieval times, something that both Winters and Washington ignores flat out.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form
C. Loring Brace *, , Noriko Seguchi , Conrad B. Quintyn , Sherry C. Fox , A. Russell Nelson ||, Sotiris K. Manolis **, and Pan Qifeng
Many human craniofacial dimensions are largely of neutral adaptive significance, and an analysis of their variation can serve as an indication of the extent to which any given population is genetically related to or differs from any other. When 24 craniofacial measurements of a series of human populations are used to generate neighbor-joining dendrograms, it is no surprise that all modern European groups, ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to Eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East, show that they are closely related to each other. The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa. Basques and Canary Islanders are clearly associated with modern Europeans. When canonical variates are plotted, neither sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested. The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it.
Rasol wrote: * Pale skin developed recently among the ancestors of modern European populations between 6 to 12 thousand years ago, in Europe. [Kittles, Shriver, Sforza]
Show us the study, I have never seen the study which claimed that Whites turned White in Europe. As a matter of fact, they tend to shy away from being specific about when and where they turned White. One reason for that, is because of course, they don't know.
But; this does NOT mean that the two of you should STOP feeding each others ignorance. I think that it's funny.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bass you sound very stupid. You say I cited myself. You are correct. In a debate you cite your propositions and evidence, this is my work.
In a debate it is your job to disconfirm my evidence. Just pointing out that other people say something different does not win an argument. A debater is only checked when you disconfirm the Debaters propositions. You have not challenged my propositions you just posted websites which discuss Mayan languages and etc. None of these sites dirrectly challenge my propositions.
Here I restate my points:
1) The Mande script is older than the Olmec writing;
2) Mixe and Mayan languages have a Mande substratum;
3) That Rafinesque in relation to the Mayan inscriptions and Wiener in relation to the Tuxtla monument noted that the scripts were related to African writing a fact I confirmed after comparison;
4) The Mixe languages are related to Malinke-Bambara and the Mixe, like the Maya claim strangers introduced culture to this population;
5) You can read Olmec and Mayan inscriptions using Malinke-Bambara and the Vai script.[/quote]
You have not provided any research that contradicts any of the above propositions.
You have failed to list any paper disputing a relationship between Mayan and Mande languages.
You have not presented any article disputing my research.
I have claimed that Delafosse recorded a tradition that the Vai script was ancient. You say it is recent. Where is your research that it is not ancient?
Here we compare the signs and clearly they are not recent.
This is supported by the similarity between the Mande/Vai writing and other ancient scripts.
Here is one of the ancient Mande inscriptions
Where is your research showing that the Vai writing did not exist in ancient times when the characters relating to the Vai script are found throughout North and West Africa along the migration route the Mande took during their expansion from Nubia to West Africa.
Please present your evidence showing that these scripts are not cognate.
In the film I present specific lexical items. Leo Wiener, in Africa and the Discovery of America, also presents lexical items showing a connection between Mayan and Mande langauges. In your replay below you do not dispute any of the terms I claim that relate to the Mayan group.
How can you cliam that you have disputed my propositions concerning the relationship between the Mayan and Mande languages when you have not discussed the lexical items and confirmed that they do not relate to one another?
You sound very ignorant of debate. My articles and research is my propositions. What you have to do is specifically dispute any on my fidings by directly challenging my evidence. You have not challenged any of my propositions. All you have done is publish some websites.
All you have done is publish web pages. These web pages do not dispute any of my research. I am still waiting for you to disconfirm my research.
Failure to disconfirm my research does nothing to confirm your position. In a debate you have to present conter evidence.
I am waiting for your disconfirmation of my propositions--a list of web pages that do not discuss my work have no status in this debate.
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
"In conclusion, the Olmec people were called Xi. They did not speak a Mixe-Zoque language they spoke a Mande language, which is the substratum language for many Mexican languages."
Where's the evidence for this? By xtension you are saying that Meso-American languages are branches of the Niger-Congo language family. Cite one source that states this outside of your hypothesis.
1) The Mande script is older than the Olmec writing;
2) Mixe and Mayan languages have a Mande substratum;
3) That Rafinesque in relation to the Mayan inscriptions and Wiener in relation to the Tuxtla monument noted that the scripts were related to African writing a fact I confirmed after comparison;
4) The Mixe languages are related to Malinke-Bambara and the Mixe, like the Maya claim strangers introduced culture to this population;
5) You can read Olmec and Mayan inscriptions using Malinke-Bambara and the Vai script.
Clyde, you have presented no evidence at all, you simply cited yourself without posting additional evidence from peer-reviewed sources. The Mande language script was developed years after the Mayan and Olmec script, are you saying Mayans and Olmecs looked into the future and copied the Mende script? Here#s a link that shows the branches of the Mayan language family, where's the connection to Niger-Congo languages?
In the 1820s Dualu Bukele of Jondu, Liberia, was inspired by a dream to create a writing system from the Vai language. The syllabary proved popular with the Vai and by the end of the 19th century, most of them were using it. In 1962, the Standardization Committee at the University of Liberia standardized the syllabary.
Mende syllabary The Mende syllabary was invented in 1921 by Kisimi Kamara (ca. 1890-1962) of Sierra Leone. Seeing how the British managed to take over his country, Kisimi concluded that their power was partly a result of their literacy. He decided to give his own people that ability. Kisimi claimed he was inspired in a dream to create the Mende syllabary, which he called Ki-ka-ku. During the 1920s and 1930s he run a school in Potoru to teach Ki-ka-ku. The syllabary became a popular method of keeping records and writing letters.
During the 1940s the British set up the Protectorate Literacy Bureau in Bo with the aim of teaching the Mende people to read and write with a version of the Latin alphabet. As a result, usage of Kisimi's syllabary gradually diminished and it was eventually forgotten.
Mende is a Niger-Congo language spoken by about 1.26 million people in Liberia and Sierra Leone.
Come on now Clyde, please tell the forum how the Olmecs and Mayans were able to copy from two language scripts that invented almost two thousand years after the beginning of their civilization. Come on brother, quit being a charlatan and tap out.
Here's your homework Clyde, please post evidence from sources other than yourself that are peer-reviewed that:
1) Demonstrate Mayan and Olmec languages are substrates of Mande
2) Demonstrate that Mayans and Olmecs copied the Vai and Mende scripts which appeared almost 2,000 years after the beginning of Olmec and Mayan civilization.
Time is ticking Clyde, also, please provide evidence validates the use of the term Negro[Negroes] and post evidence that biological race exists. [/QUOTE]
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marc has done a fantastic job of using iconographic and craniometric evidence to support his thesis. Evidence you have failed to disconfirm.
.
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: . .
Hi Mike. Yes. The Upper Paleolithic did belong to us. Grimaldi here is picture A2. The Khoisan men are slender while the women often steatophygous. In the page, B2, B2, B3, and B4 are steatophygous. B6 and D4 might be, too.
According to the archeological evidence, I'd say that the Middle East was African so a movement from the Middle East to Europe was a movement of Africans from the Middle East to Europe. For example:
While stories of Mesopotamia recount how they gave gifts of cattle and agriculture to the people of the Steppes (many African - by phenotype in Steppe as in first poster above) from Africa itself traditions began that made it to the Near East and from there to Europe in a demic movement. Pottery studies (see 5 below) and cattle brecia show this. Evaluate the analogies of columns A, D, and F:
Mike. I hope the following is related to your thread. You are trying to separate out when today's population entered resulting in a replacement of and/or phenotypic modification of the original population of Europe which was phenotypically African.
This map shows from where and when whites entered the western and southern parts of Europe; this was in pretty recent times:
posted
Interesting!!! Are you saying modern Europeans ancestors were tropical black Africans as recently as about 15kybp?? That's why there is no evidence of their modern form/remains found in Europe.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QUOTE]
* The non black, cold adapted skeletal forms of most Europeans and some Nothern Eurasians are recent evolutionary adaptations - this is why you do not find these traits in the Upper Paleolithic - it's for the same reason you find no humans in the Jurassic [dynosaur] era, because these traits had not yet evolved. [Keita, Stringer, Holliday]
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Says who??? THE ASS - There no sense in having a long thread of trolling and photoshop material that proves nothing. One thread has close to 1100 posts in it, yet proof was not provided to justify the title of the thread anyays.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Says who??? THE ASS - There no sense in having a long thread of trolling and photoshop material that proves nothing. One thread has close to 1100 posts in it, yet proof was not provided to justify the title of the thread anyays.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: lyde caught in a lie, he stated that he deciphered the Olmec script using the Mende script, but the Mende script was created long after the Olmec script. And this:
"In conclusion, the Olmec people were called Xi. They did not speak a Mixe-Zoque language they spoke a Mande language, which is the substratum language for many Mexican languages."
Give me a break Clyde, come on, the only person making that claim is you, unless you can show evidence from other peer-reviewed sources that state pre-Columbian Native American languages are closely related to Mande languages.
Charlie Bass, you are absolutely wrong. What is called the Mende-Script was not created long after the Olmec. As a matter of fact, can you scientifically prove your claim? The script was based on one or more extremely old ancient Black African writing system and was only re-purposed to accommodate certain needs. This is the same idea with most Black African writing systems; many of which were destroyed by Euro-Western explorers specialists. An excellent example of this would be the tragic story of the Shumom writing systems of Cameroon found here in detail, which over 1,100 of the Shumom/Bamum original manual scripts, most of which now sit in British museums:
Such attempts and half-baked success in stealing, concealing and destroying original ancient Black African works; in addition to teaching false knowledge that Black Africans have no history is what gives rise to what is sometimes seen as surprisingly ignorant questions and flaws logic from many Eurocentric conditioned individuals; even when they are college educated with multiple degrees.
The idea that almost any Black African writing system was developed after the the Olmec presence in the very ancient Mexico, without any scientific proof is logically absurd, especially when these ancient Olmec are in fact Black Africans themselves.
Posts: 213 | From: New York City, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ True. Sometimes it gets tiresome trying to inform and educate on this forum.
On a personal note, my father was Mende. His paternal and maternal lineages were from warrior clans that hailed from Melle (present day Mali). The Mende (part of the Mane Invasions) fought their way into present day Sierra Leone during the 15th & 16th centuries. And they arrived as a literate people.
In my family home, we had books and texts written in Vai and Mende that had been compiled by the Portuguese who landed on the shores of present day Sierra Leone in 1462.
I've never understood why anyone would claim that the Vai or Mende script was invented in the 19th century and later????
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Mende, Kono, Manding/Madinka, Vai, Kpelle, Loma, Gissi etc are all clans and tribes of the so called Mande nation that hail from ancient Kush.
Oral histories among these nations do report of a trans- oceanic(atlantic) trade with the lands known as the Caribbean and Americas today.
Moreover, it is also reported that Cristobal Colon aka Christopher Columbus who was a seaman along the west African coast for over 20 years was informed (along with the Portuguese) by West Africans of the sea currents that would take them back and forth to their so called New World.
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some on this forum may demand written evidence of my assertions.
Suffice to say, the written evidence that survived the destruction and decimation of the scribal/priestly class by Arabs and Europeans in these societies were stolen, spirited away and are now stashed in libraries and private collections in the Euro-American world.
The Arabs simply burnt the written records.
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Same with the Catholic priests and written records over here. Those Abrahamic faiths really suck.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: [QB] Good post rasol, modern Europeans do descend from Paleolithic Europeans, the DNA evidence overwhelmingly supports this. Clyde and Marc are simply associating Indo-European languages with being white, but they fail to realize that Indians and Iranians, who both speak Indo-European languages, are not white and are not European, so their flawed argument has already failed.
Correct, there are Black Indians who are just as much Indo-European speakers, and white Europeans who are not now and never have been Indo European speakers.
You' think this would be easy to grasp, but it goes right over the heads of some of ES 'new breed puppy' posters.
They keep this forum mired down in a state of ineducable adolescence.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is the time period you must keep in mind. As far as I can recall, the southern black population did not speak Indo European before the Aryan invasions.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: It is the time period you must keep in mind. As far as I can recall, the southern black population did not speak Indo European before the Aryan invasions.
Blacks and whites spoke different languages. These Blacks did not speak Indo-Aryan languages. You are right the southern Blacks spoke Malinke-Bambara , Egyptian and Phonesian.The Black Greeks, for example spoke Achaioi or Achaean.
The white Greeks: Ionian and Dorians spoke Aeolic. It is important to remember that 52.2% of Greek has an unknown etymology.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Interesting!!! Are you saying modern Europeans ancestors were tropical black Africans as recently as about 15kybp?? That's why there is no evidence of their modern form/remains found in Europe.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QUOTE]
* The non black, cold adapted skeletal forms of most Europeans and some Nothern Eurasians are recent evolutionary adaptations - this is why you do not find these traits in the Upper Paleolithic - it's for the same reason you find no humans in the Jurassic [dynosaur] era, because these traits had not yet evolved. [Keita, Stringer, Holliday]
Yeah I want to know this answer too? When did people turn from black tropical adapted people to non-black cold adapted people. And what color or type were white Europeans before 15kya?
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ Rasol made a silly statement, which he knew fully well, had no factual foundation. And which no one is even close to being able to answer. They don't even know how or why they turned white, much-less When! The only thing certain, is that it happened in the Eurasian Plains.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
This has been answered. Do a search. You and Mike111 are quite stupid, and not worth my time, so I don't address your every mindless grunting. Sorry.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QUOTE]Originally posted by akoben08: [It is the time period you must keep in mind. As far as I can recall, the southern black population did not speak Indo European before the Aryan invasions.
quote:Blacks and whites spoke different languages. These Blacks did not speak Indo-Aryan languages.
Hmm. Like Kushana you mean, which you claim as the Indo-European origin of the Meriotic script.
lol.
But these kids you toy with are slow, and completely lost by what I just wrote.
I'll help them only a little:
"I did find that Meroitic was related to the Tokhrian/Kushana language, which is classed in the Indo-European family." - Clyde Winters.
^ I wonder how many of them will ever put two and two together, and discover how contrived and insencere is Winters ideology faux-history.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: So do you think Vai is older than Olmec and Olmec derived from it, as clyde winters think?
->
quote:Originally posted by Jo Nongowa: The Mende, Kono, Manding/Madinka, Vai, Kpelle, Loma, Gissi etc are all clans and tribes of the so called Mande nation that hail from ancient Kush.
Oral histories among these nations do report of a trans- oceanic(atlantic) trade with the lands known as the Caribbean and Americas today.
Moreover, it is also reported that Cristobal Colon aka Christopher Columbus who was a seaman along the west African coast for over 20 years was informed (along with the Portuguese) by West Africans of the sea currents that would take them back and forth to their so called New World.
^ Did not answer the question.
Provide - origin date for Vai. - orign date for Olmec.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QUOTE]Originally posted by akoben08: [It is the time period you must keep in mind. As far as I can recall, the southern black population did not speak Indo European before the Aryan invasions.
quote:Blacks and whites spoke different languages. These Blacks did not speak Indo-Aryan languages.
Hmm. Like Kushana you mean, which you claim as the Indo-European origin of the Meriotic script.
lol.
But these kids you toy with are slow, and completely lost by what I just wrote.
I'll help them only a little:
"I did find that Meroitic was related to the Tokhrian/Kushana language, which is classed in the Indo-European family." - Clyde Winters.
^ I wonder how many of them will ever put two and two together, and discover how contrived and insencere is Winters ideology faux-history.
You seem to be a deeply insecure individual. Why do you feel the need to boast of your alleged superior intelligence? If it is obvious then why not wait for it to be acknowledged by others, or you are not sure they will? Let me explain: the southern blacks in India did not speak Indo European until after the invasion which would be after around 1200 bc or so - irrelevant to the case Winters is making.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: lyde caught in a lie, he stated that he deciphered the Olmec script using the Mende script, but the Mende script was created long after the Olmec script. And this:
"In conclusion, the Olmec people were called Xi. They did not speak a Mixe-Zoque language they spoke a Mande language, which is the substratum language for many Mexican languages."
Give me a break Clyde, come on, the only person making that claim is you, unless you can show evidence from other peer-reviewed sources that state pre-Columbian Native American languages are closely related to Mande languages.
Charlie Bass, you are absolutely wrong. What is called the Mende-Script was not created long after the Olmec. As a matter of fact, can you scientifically prove your claim? The script was based on one or more extremely old ancient Black African writing system and was only re-purposed to accommodate certain needs. This is the same idea with most Black African writing systems; many of which were destroyed by Euro-Western explorers specialists. An excellent example of this would be the tragic story of the Shumom writing systems of Cameroon found here in detail, which over 1,100 of the Shumom/Bamum original manual scripts, most of which now sit in British museums:
Such attempts and half-baked success in stealing, concealing and destroying original ancient Black African works; in addition to teaching false knowledge that Black Africans have no history is what gives rise to what is sometimes seen as surprisingly ignorant questions and flaws logic from many Eurocentric conditioned individuals; even when they are college educated with multiple degrees.
The idea that almost any Black African writing system was developed after the the Olmec presence in the very ancient Mexico, without any scientific proof is logically absurd, especially when these ancient Olmec are in fact Black Africans themselves.
Looka here, shut up, stop trolling and post evidence of when the Mende and Vai scripts came into being and show that they precede the Olmec and Mayan scripts as well as proving that the Olmec and Mayan languages are substrates of Mande languages, all of this trolling dribble and strawmans and still no evidence.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Just a question for clarity. The Bass does not accept the African presense among the Olmecs?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: You seem to be a deeply insecure individual. Why do you feel the need to boast of your alleged superior intelligence? If it is obvious then why not wait for it to be acknowledged by others,
ROFL!!!, just to let you know, it already has been acknwoledged by others a number of times on this board!
And you likely won't get a reply, cuz anyone who's been on this board would know the reasoning behind is post wasn't to show off/leave an impression (when he does that the posts usually make a strong direct point in a witty, autor like manner),
rasol's obviously just soggy at the fact that young potential Africanists scholars are being duped and can potentially hurt us (Africanists -- our credibility) instead of help us.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: [QUOTE]Looka here, shut up, stop trolling and post evidence of when the Mende and Vai scripts came into being and show that they precede the Olmec and Mayan scripts as well as proving that the Olmec and Mayan languages are substrates of Mande languages, all of this trolling dribble and strawmans and still no evidence.
I have presented evidence of the Mande substratum in the Mayan languages and I also published the Oued Mertoutek inscription showing the antiquity of the Vai script.
You have presented no counter evidence. You are the one trolling, since you started this thread and up to now has presented no counter evidence disconfirming the claims of Marc and I.
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: You seem to be a deeply insecure individual. Why do you feel the need to boast of your alleged superior intelligence? If it is obvious then why not wait for it to be acknowledged by others,
ROFL!!!, just to let you know, it already has been acknwoledged by others a number of times on this board!
And you likely won't get a reply, cuz anyone who's been on this board would know the reasoning behind is post wasn't to show off/leave an impression (when he does that the posts usually make a strong direct point in a witty, autor like manner),
rasol's obviously just soggy at the fact that young potential Africanists scholars are being duped and can potentially hurt us (Africanists -- our credibility) instead of help us.
Please provide a list of the publications you "Africanists" have authored that will be adversely affected by the material in this thread.
If you haven't published anything how can you be producing Africanists literature?
The only real Africanists on this form is Supercar/Mystery Solver who now has a very interesting Blog.
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: You seem to be a deeply insecure individual. Why do you feel the need to boast of your alleged superior intelligence? If it is obvious then why not wait for it to be acknowledged by others,
ROFL!!!, just to let you know, it already has been acknwoledged by others a number of times on this board!
And you likely won't get a reply, cuz anyone who's been on this board would know the reasoning behind is post wasn't to show off/leave an impression (when he does that the posts usually make a strong direct point in a witty, autor like manner),
rasol's obviously just soggy at the fact that young potential Africanists scholars are being duped and can potentially hurt us (Africanists -- our credibility) instead of help us.
Please provide a list of the publications you "Africanists" have authored that will be adversely affected by the material in this thread.
If you haven't published anything how can you be producing Africanists literature?
The only real Africanists on this form is Supercar/Mystery Solver who now has a very interesting Blog.
.
LOL Good point, I respect that you aren't lazy like these other pretentious fucks on here and actually PUBLISH your work and are in the works of creating a database, writing books and I have seen your websites.
The greatest attributes in niggers like Rasol and other faux pas scientists is they have a propensity to have a "monkey see monkey do" philosophy. Whatever the white man says I will do , they are weak by nature and usually coerce others to help support him like he has done with many sycophants on this board.
Yet, they never have the will to actually DO anything. They sit and wait for OTHER to do for them and have irreverence for people that get off of their ass and do things for the cause unless they 100% agree with them--very childish.
Nigger par excellence Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: You seem to be a deeply insecure individual. Why do you feel the need to boast of your alleged superior intelligence? If it is obvious then why not wait for it to be acknowledged by others,
ROFL!!!, just to let you know, it already has been acknwoledged by others a number of times on this board!
And you likely won't get a reply, cuz anyone who's been on this board would know the reasoning behind is post wasn't to show off/leave an impression (when he does that the posts usually make a strong direct point in a witty, autor like manner),
rasol's obviously just soggy at the fact that young potential Africanists scholars are being duped and can potentially hurt us (Africanists -- our credibility) instead of help us.
Then i am sorry for him as he is assuming i am not familiar with the issues. Maybe he should let me worry abut being "duped".
But you know, maybe you could help me. Iv been trying to get past the insults to understand each side spoint of view. I don't know why it is so hard for some to accept that the Shang and Olmec had blacks among them? Winters is not the only one saying this.
As for blacks in early Europe, didn't Van Sertima et al show where blacks were in England during time of Roman invasion of Britian and even in Scandenavia? Or is it a question of how many? What? I don't get it.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jo Nongowa: Moreover, an African with Mende/Vai lineage asserts the Mande nation in West Africa has always been literate and 'others' demand evidence????
I don't get it.
Some people on the forum feel that if the European do not say something is so, it can not be possible.
Here is a discussion of the fact the Mande people have never stopped writing in the script for 1000's of years. The Mande have never Stopped Writing
Poro members in Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia have always been privy to and familiar with the ancient scripts from ancient Kush. Hardly surprising, as Kush is the ancestral homeland.
The European invaders in the 19th century were never allowed access to the ancient scripts. Therefore, by way of diversion, those scripts, which are in the public domain were 'designed' for public consumption; in order not to offend the Poro Society or attract the destructive attention of the European invaders and occupiers.
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic