posted
A good example of the Malians in the North America are the Nanticokes. The Nanticokes were described by B.S Barton as very dark. This tribe of Black Native Americans formerly lived in the Chesapeake Bay and Delaware. They later settled in Wyoming, Oklahoma and Canada.
During the Revolutionary War, the Nanticoke sided with the British and many Nanticoke migrated to Canada, while others went into hiding or moved out West. By 1867, the Nanticoke moved to Kansas with the Lenape. There chiefdoms were called Monie, Wicomoco and Manokin (,Mandekan ?).
In 1741-51, J.C. Pyrlaeus collected the Numerals of the Nanticoke. This was before the Revolutionary War. Around this time the Conoy people joined their tribe.
The numerals collected by Pyrlaeus when they were compared to other numerals by Murray in 1873, they did not match numerals in any known Indian language. Brinton found that they were identical to Malinke-Bambara numerals.
These numerals make it clear the Nanticoke were descendants of the Malian explorers.
Below are Nanticoke at the Lenape-Nanticoke annual celebration.
posted
The Nanticoke make it clear that they are "Muurs".
The nanticoke have two origin traditions. The first is that formerly lived in the Central U.S. and migrated eastward 300 years before the coming of the Europeans to avoid incessant warfare. The interesting thing about this tradition is that it would place their origin in the Central U.S., to around the time Abubakari sailed to the Americas.
Another, Nanticoke tradition traces their descent to "Muurish" sailors who were shipwrecked on the Maryland shore. See:
. Ironlion, how many more Muurish, communities were existing in the U.S. when Europeans got here.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Nanticoke make it clear that they are "Muurs".
The nanticoke have two origin traditions. The first is that formerly lived in the Central U.S. and migrated eastward 300 years before the coming of the Europeans to avoid incessant warfare. The interesting thing about this tradition is that it would place their origin in the Central U.S., to around the time Abubakari sailed to the Americas.
Another, Nanticoke tradition traces their descent to "Muurish" sailors who were shipwrecked on the Maryland shore. See:
That means the Nanticoke are not Native Americans
Any popualtion that recent to America is far from being native.
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Nanticoke make it clear that they are "Muurs".
The nanticoke have two origin traditions. The first is that formerly lived in the Central U.S. and migrated eastward 300 years before the coming of the Europeans to avoid incessant warfare. The interesting thing about this tradition is that it would place their origin in the Central U.S., to around the time Abubakari sailed to the Americas.
Another, Nanticoke tradition traces their descent to "Muurish" sailors who were shipwrecked on the Maryland shore. See:
That means the Nanticoke are not Native Americans
Any popualtion that recent to America is far from being native.
The mongoloids came after the paleoamericans so they are not Native Americans.
The Paleoamericans were Africans so Africans have been in America longer than the mongoloids. Also remember they married Indians so they would be Native Americans.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Nanticoke make it clear that they are "Muurs".
The nanticoke have two origin traditions. The first is that formerly lived in the Central U.S. and migrated eastward 300 years before the coming of the Europeans to avoid incessant warfare. The interesting thing about this tradition is that it would place their origin in the Central U.S., to around the time Abubakari sailed to the Americas.
Another, Nanticoke tradition traces their descent to "Muurish" sailors who were shipwrecked on the Maryland shore. See:
That means the Nanticoke are not Native Americans
Any popualtion that recent to America is far from being native.
The mongoloids came after the paleoamericans so they are not Native Americans.
The Paleoamericans were Africans so Africans have been in America longer than the mongoloids. Also remember they married Indians so they would be Native Americans.
.
That doesn't change the fact that at all that if the Nanticoke were 14th century Moors from Africa then the Nanticoke are not Native American
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Nanticoke make it clear that they are "Muurs".
The nanticoke have two origin traditions. The first is that formerly lived in the Central U.S. and migrated eastward 300 years before the coming of the Europeans to avoid incessant warfare. The interesting thing about this tradition is that it would place their origin in the Central U.S., to around the time Abubakari sailed to the Americas.
Another, Nanticoke tradition traces their descent to "Muurish" sailors who were shipwrecked on the Maryland shore. See:
That means the Nanticoke are not Native Americans
Any popualtion that recent to America is far from being native.
The mongoloids came after the paleoamericans so they are not Native Americans.
The Paleoamericans were Africans so Africans have been in America longer than the mongoloids. Also remember they married Indians so they would be Native Americans.
.
That doesn't change the fact that at all that if the Nanticoke were 14th century Moors from Africa then the Nanticoke are not Native American
Hahahaha. You're funny. Now you are suppose to be the person who can decide how long you must live in a place before you become Native.
Your arguments are groundless. The paleoamericans were Aricans. The mongoloids don't reach the Americas until 94,000 years after the Khoisan, Anu and Contemporary Sub-Saharan Africans had already settled North America .
The African presence in North America and beyond is much older than that of the Mongoloids. You can write a million words it does not change the fact Africans were here first.
This is silly. The Nanticoke were matriarchial, before they became Christians.
This means that the many of the females the Muurs married were Black Native American for them to remain so dark.
You're just upset that Ironlion was right about many Native Americans being Muurs.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Nanticoke make it clear that they are "Muurs".
The nanticoke have two origin traditions. The first is that formerly lived in the Central U.S. and migrated eastward 300 years before the coming of the Europeans to avoid incessant warfare. The interesting thing about this tradition is that it would place their origin in the Central U.S., to around the time Abubakari sailed to the Americas.
Another, Nanticoke tradition traces their descent to "Muurish" sailors who were shipwrecked on the Maryland shore. See:
That means the Nanticoke are not Native Americans
Any popualtion that recent to America is far from being native.
The mongoloids came after the paleoamericans so they are not Native Americans.
The Paleoamericans were Africans so Africans have been in America longer than the mongoloids. Also remember they married Indians so they would be Native Americans.
.
That doesn't change the fact that at all that if the Nanticoke were 14th century Moors from Africa then the Nanticoke are not Native American
Hahahaha. You're funny. Now you are suppose to be the person who can decide how long you must live in a place before you become Native.
No scholar in thr world would call Moors from Africa who migrated to America in the 14th century "Native Americans"
that is pure silliness
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Nanticoke make it clear that they are "Muurs".
The nanticoke have two origin traditions. The first is that formerly lived in the Central U.S. and migrated eastward 300 years before the coming of the Europeans to avoid incessant warfare. The interesting thing about this tradition is that it would place their origin in the Central U.S., to around the time Abubakari sailed to the Americas.
Another, Nanticoke tradition traces their descent to "Muurish" sailors who were shipwrecked on the Maryland shore. See:
That means the Nanticoke are not Native Americans
Any popualtion that recent to America is far from being native.
The mongoloids came after the paleoamericans so they are not Native Americans.
The Paleoamericans were Africans so Africans have been in America longer than the mongoloids. Also remember they married Indians so they would be Native Americans.
.
That doesn't change the fact that at all that if the Nanticoke were 14th century Moors from Africa then the Nanticoke are not Native American
Hahahaha. You're funny. Now you are suppose to be the person who can decide how long you must live in a place before you become Native.
No scholar in thr world would call Moors from Africa who migrated to America in the 14th century "Native Americans"
that is pure silliness
Hahaha. I would.
Africans were the first Americans. And they have always been traveling to Americas for the past 100,000 years.
posted
Many think that similarity in objects and buildings invented by different peoples mean they must have been spread from point A to B through diffusion or migration. That is often not the case. There are many examples of everything from stone axes to megalith tombs to pyramids that were independently invented by people who never had any contact with each other, similarity in patterns and cloth. Sometimes though the time gap between the examples can be very big, other times they can be nearly contemporary
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2685 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the 1830s the painter George Catlin traveled extensively in North America, but also in South America, and depicted the Native American population. He left a legacy of hundreds of paintings. Those painting do not show any Africans or "Moors", they show, as expected, Native Americans. Native Americans have their descendancy from Asia, and they are neither "White" or "Black". They are a group of their own.
I recommend a look at Catlins paintings. He was a man who actually saw the people he painted with his own eyes.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2685 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
From the givens above, Nanticoke appear to have a Maryland/Delaware Original American base that overwhelmingly absorbed Eastern Hemisphere incomers. What's at work? Real world example of founder effect and drift at work in a specific locale. Afr & Eur founded lineages among Amers who took them on as mates. Later influxes of Afrs & Euros w/o accompanying Amer influx.
For me even if they loose Original American languages these kind of new metis communities/tribes/internal nations are whatever they claim to be and primary 'Indian' identity cannot be withheld from them. And why should they shy from pride in any of their progenitors or not use those pregenitors identities along side their native one?
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: In the 1830s the painter George Catlin traveled extensively in North America, but also in South America, and depicted the Native American population. He left a legacy of hundreds of paintings. Those painting do not show any Africans or "Moors", they show, as expected, Native Americans. Native Americans have their descendancy from Asia, and they are neither "White" or "Black". They are a group of their own.
I recommend a look at Catlins paintings. He was a man who actually saw the people he painted with his own eyes.
We know there was Africans prior to 1872 on the continent of the Americas. Does that make them the Ameridians, no that not, but they were there already. This is why people are able to show images of Africans phenotypes by painters who made art form before 1872. Or is it now "symbolic"?
Crispus Attucks (c.1723 – March 5, 1770) was an American stevedore of African and Native American descent.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant to post the "El negro" Olmec head. Anyways, look this Olmec head up before you go screaming about how black folk weren't in the Americans for thousands upon thousands of years.
-------------------- I'm a cosmic being Posts: 7 | From: New Orleans | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by uraeus: I meant to post the "El negro" Olmec head. Anyways, look this Olmec head up before you go screaming about how black folk weren't in the Americans for thousands upon thousands of years.
we have dozens of threads on Olmecs, many by Clyde Winters who started the thread we are on now
quote:Originally posted by uraeus: I meant to post the "El negro" Olmec head. Anyways, look this Olmec head up before you go screaming about how black folk weren't in the Americans for thousands upon thousands of years.
we have dozens of threads on Olmecs, many by Clyde Winters who started the thread we are on now
Ties in with black people being able to claim Indigenous to the Americas. Especially if they still practice Indigenous cultures. No matter if part of their ancestry came here 500 years.
-------------------- I'm a cosmic being Posts: 7 | From: New Orleans | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic