posted
The Olmecs were not the first Africans to create a civilization in Mexico. These Africans came from the ancient Sahara and West Africa.
Africans founded many of the earliest civilizations in the New World. We do not know when these Blacks arrived in the Americas. Scientists theorize that over 5000 years ago a group of African settlers sailing along the West African coast, in their papyrus trading vessels were caught in a storm and drifted aimlessly out to sea. In the Atlantic ocean they were captured by the South Equatorial current and carried across the Atlantic towards the Americas.
We can assume that due to the ability of these explorers to navigate by the stars they were probably able to make a return trip to West Africa. Much of West Africa 5000 years ago was unoccupied. This means that the populations that later moved into West Africa were living in Middle Africa,and the Sahara. These people due to a different climate in the Sahara at this time traveled from community to community by sea. It seems logical to assume that one of these Paleo-African groups travelled down the long extinct rivers of Middle Africa and sailed out into the Atlantic Ocean and was carried to the Americas by the powerful currents found in the Atlantic Ocean.
Mexico and Central America were centers of African civilization 5000 years ago. In Belize , around 2500 B.C., we see evidence of agriculture. The iconography of this period depicts Africoids. And at Izapa in 1358 B.C., astronomer-priests invented the first American calendar. In addition numerous sculptures of blacks dating to the 2nd millennium B.C, have been found at La Venta, Chiapas, Teotihuacan and Tlatilco.
Chiapas Blacks
The African voyagers to the New World came here in papyrus boats. A stone stela from Izapa, Chiapas in southern Mexico show the boats these Africans came in when they sailed to the Americas. These boats were carried across the Atlantic ocean to Mexico and Brazil, by the North Equatorial current which meets the Canaries Current off the Senegambian coast. It is interesting to note that papyrus boats are still being built in West Africa today.
The earliest culture founded by Blacks in Mexico was the Mokaya tradition. The Mokaya tradition was situated on the Pacific coast of Mexico in the Soconusco region. Sedentary village life began as early as 2000BC. By 1700-1500 BC we see many African communities in the Mazatan region. This is called the Barra phase or Ocos complex.
During the Barra phase these Blacks built villages amd made beautiful ceramic vessels often with three legs. They also made a large number of effigy vessels.
The figurines of the Ocos are the most significant evidence for Blacks living in the area during this period. The female figurine from Aquiles Serdan is clearly that of an African woman. Ocos Female
The Blacks of the Mokaya traditions were not Olmec. The civilization of the Mokaya traditions began 700 years before the Olmec arrived in Mexico.
In the Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership (1995), (ed.) by Carolyn Tate, on page 65, we find the following statement “Olmec culture as far as we know seems to have no antecedents; no material models remain for its monumental constructions and sculptures and the ritual acts captured in small objects”. M. Coe (1989), observed that “on the contrary, the evidence although negative, is that the Olmec style of art, and Olmec engineering ability suddenly appeared full fledged from about 1200 BC”.
Mary E. Pye, writing in Olmec Archaeology in Mesoamerica (2000), (ed.) by J.E. Cark and M.E. Pye,makes it clear after a discussion of the pre-Olmec civilizations of the Mokaya tradition, that these cultures contributed nothing to the rise of the Olmec culture. Pye wrote “The Mokaya appear to have gradually come under Olmec influence during Cherla times and to have adopted Olmec ways. We use the term olmecization to describe the processes whereby independent groups tried to become Olmecs, or to become like the Olmecs” (p.234). Pye makes it clear that it was around 1200 BC that Olmec civilization rose in Mesoamerica. She continues “Much of the current debate about the Olmecs concerns the traditional mother culture view. For us this is still a primary issue. Our data from the Pacific coast show that the mother culture idea is still viable in terms of cultural practices. The early Olmecs created the first civilization in Mesoamerica; they had no peers, only contemporaries” (pp.245-46).
Cherla There continues to be no evidence that Olmec civilization originated in Mexico. R.A. Diehl, in The Olmecs (Thames & Hudson, 2004) wrote that “The identity of these first Olmecs remain a mystery. Some scholars believe they were Mokaya migrants from the Pacific coast of Chiapas who brought improved maize strains and incipient social stratification with them. Others propose that Olmec culture evolved among local indigenous populations without significant external stimulus. I prefer the latter position, but freely admit that we lack sufficient information on the period before 1500 B.C. to resolve the issue” (p.25).
.....
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
sidirom quote: __________________________________________________________ Nice cartoons, now show the real figurines and where they supposedly where found. _________________________________________________________________ These are the pictures archaeologist have published to illustrate the Ocos and Cherla people. The Chiapas figurines are real.
....
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
The skulls belonging to the earliest known South Americans—or Paleo-Indians—had long, narrow crania, projecting jaws, and low, broad eye sockets and noses. Drastically different from American Indians, these skulls appear more similar to modern Australians, Melanesians, and Sub-Saharan Africans.
---------------------
Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implications for the settlement of the New World Walter A. Neves and Mark Hubbe Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, December 20, 2005
Comparative morphological studies of the earliest human skeletons of the New World have shown that, whereas late prehistoric, recent, and present Native Americans tend to exhibit a cranial morphology similar to late and modern Northern Asians (short and wide neurocrania; high, orthognatic and broad faces; and relatively high and narrow orbits and noses), the earliest South Americans tend to be more similar to present Australians, Melanesians, and Sub-Saharan Africans (narrow and long neurocrania; prognatic, low faces; and relatively low and broad orbits and noses). However, most of the previous studies of early American human remains were based on small cranial samples. Herein we compare the largest sample of early American skulls ever studied (81 skulls of the Lagoa Santa region) with worldwide data sets representing global morphological variation in humans, through three different multivariate analyses. The results obtained from all multivariate analyses confirm a close morphological affinity between South-American Paleoindians and extant Australo-Melanesians groups, supporting the hypothesis that two distinct biological populations could have colonized the New World in the Pleistocene/Holocene transition.
posted
Mexico is a country that has a fair amount of black blood? This is all new to me. I never think about mexicans having african blood. To read that 10% of mexicans were black is news to me.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: sidirom quote: __________________________________________________________ Nice cartoons, now show the real figurines and where they supposedly where found. _________________________________________________________________ These are the pictures archaeologist have published to illustrate the Ocos and Cherla people. The Chiapas figurines are real.
....
Feel free toprovide a source.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KING: Mexico is a country that has a fair amount of black blood? This is all new to me. I never think about mexicans having african blood. To read that 10% of mexicans were black is news to me.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by rasol:
Skulls in South America Tell New Migration Tale By Bjorn Carey LiveScience Staff Writer posted: 12 December, 2005 5:01pm ET
The skulls belonging to the earliest known South Americans—or Paleo-Indians—had long, narrow crania, projecting jaws, and low, broad eye sockets and noses. Drastically different from American Indians, these skulls appear more similar to modern Australians, Melanesians, and Sub-Saharan Africans. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implications for the settlement of the New World Walter A. Neves and Mark Hubbe Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, December 20, 2005
Comparative morphological studies of the earliest human skeletons of the New World have shown that, whereas late prehistoric, recent, and present Native Americans tend to exhibit a cranial morphology similar to late and modern Northern Asians (short and wide neurocrania; high, orthognatic and broad faces; and relatively high and narrow orbits and noses), the earliest South Americans tend to be more similar to present Australians, Melanesians, and Sub-Saharan Africans (narrow and long neurocrania; prognatic, low faces; and relatively low and broad orbits and noses). However, most of the previous studies of early American human remains were based on small cranial samples. Herein we compare the largest sample of early American skulls ever studied (81 skulls of the Lagoa Santa region) with worldwide data sets representing global morphological variation in humans, through three different multivariate analyses. The results obtained from all multivariate analyses confirm a close morphological affinity between South-American Paleoindians and extant Australo-Melanesians groups, supporting the hypothesis that two distinct biological populations could have colonized the New World in the Pleistocene/Holocene transition.
Full Text File
P.S.: Rasol thanks for the road map.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for there being no evidence of Pre-Olmec cultures that would form Olmec society later. Go look up the "Fat Boys" in La Democracia, Guatemala.
posted
The problems of transatlantic diffusion theories
The real challenge facing oceanic hyperdiffusionists is not so much that the comparisons of data they build their theories on are necessarily weaker than those made by more orthodox "evolution in situ" scholars. It is that their theories are necessarily more complicated and leave more to explain, thus leaving more to go wrong with their explanations.
The chief problem with positing a West African origin for Olmec culture is that one would expect such kinds of trans-Atlantic travel to leave EITHER more OR fewer traces in Mesoamerica, than the ones we actually find.
Occasional one-way ocean crossings are not hard to believe in during much of prehistory. There are records in early modern times, for instance, of Inuits who survived an accidental kayak trip to West Europe; certainly W. Africans could have wound up in the New World ~1500 B.C.-~500 C.E. But those Inuits did not establish colonies in the Hebrides, and we do not seek the origins of Renaissance realism in Inuit animal carvings.
Any WA fishers or traders who landed in Mesoamerica would have been unlikely to set sail with women, plant or animal domesticates, and toolmaking specialists - the kind of cargo you need in order to transplant your culture onto an alien shore already settled by others. At their luckiest, these stranded sailors would have been adopted by an indigenous tribe, married native women and adapted to native culture. It is most unlikely they would have been elected to local chieftaincies, any more than today's refugees wind up running for president in their lands of refuge.
If they did pull this stunt off, thereby persuading Native American sculptors to render them immortal - then they must have done so by HAVING SOMETHING ON the locals, culturally. Some items of Old World culture would have had to give them an advantage over pre-Olmec Mesoamericans. Well, what items were they? Millet or cattle or bronzemaking? And if they had such items, *where were they in 1492*? Why hadn't they diffused far and wide throughout Native America, the way the Spaniards' horses did, far beyond the writ of the King of Spain?
In modern experience, seafaring cultures that are successful enough to plant colonies on previously occupied shores are usually successful enough to establish regular round-trip voyages. Any fool can set out to sea, after all; the test of seamanship is being able to get back home again, as any sailor will tell you. But the supposition of round-trip travel between Guinea and Mexico creates even more problems --
E.g., why would they have bothered? For what did they trade, that was in short supply in WA and so valuable that it would be worth the incredible hazards of trans-Atlantic travel?
E.g., why didn't they bother to pick up any of those incredibly useful Mesoamerican plant cultigens that had swept across Europe by 100 years after Columbus - as well as Africa and Asia? Or did they really, and WA'ans actually had maize and tobacco and tomatoes all along - but somehow the Euros overlooked them?
E.g., how come they didn't establish "Olmec" way-stations? Nobody in his right mind sails directly from Europe or Africa to the Isthmus of Tehuantepec - you have to go via the Greater Antilles and Florida, as the Spaniards did. And you would found colonies there, as the Spaniards did, leaving plentiful signs of them today. So where is the "WA Olmec phase" of archeology in Florida, Cuba, Hispaniola and Puerto Rico? You can't have it just in Mexico.
E.g., why didn't they transmit Old World diseases to the New World the way Europeans and Africans apparently did in 1500? Epidemics devastated Native Americans from pole to pole, post- Columbus, arguing long isolation from Old World pathogens. If WA'ans had been mucking around in Olmec Country, would not that patch of Mesoamericans at least have experienced these diseases at that time? But in that case, (a) they would have been already present in Mexico by 1500 and (b) they would not have been as lethal as history records they were at that time.
One could go on and on. The problem is not that one can't cobble together an argument that ingeniously links, say, Mandes with Olmecs - or any other hyperdiffusionist pairing - but that in order to make ANY such theory work, one is driven to add so many bells and whistles and other moving parts that it becomes increasingly cumbersome and unlikely.
Oceanic diffusion theories are the scientific equivalent of Jaguars: man, they look sexy and they're sure a lot of fun to drive, but they're constantly breaking down. Scientists prefer indigenous evolution theories (at least to go to work in) because they're more like Hondas: simple and easily maintainable. *That* kind of elegance.
So it does not require a "conspiracy" or "blindness" on the part of orthodox thinkers to turn up their noses at glamorous diffusion propositions. Diffusion seems to explain one comparison neatly, but usually at the cost of making six other explanations more complex. There is an extra burden of proof to make the complex theories work BETTER than the simpler explanation of chance convergence.
E.g., why didn't they transmit Old World diseases to the New World the way Europeans and Africans apparently did in 1500? Epidemics devastated Native Americans from pole to pole, post- Columbus, arguing long isolation from Old World pathogens. If WA'ans had been mucking around in Olmec Country, would not that patch of Mesoamericans at least have experienced these diseases at that time? But in that case, (a) they would have been already present in Mexico by 1500 and (b) they would not have been as lethal as history records they were at that time.
Africans have rarely passed on diseases to other people.
It was the Europeans who spread death to other people. Europeans even took the cold to the Eckimos. It was the European use of diseases that allowed the Spanish to conquer the Meso-American people who fell dead to diseases before they could even fight.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
sidirom quote: __________________________________________________________________ If they did pull this stunt off, thereby persuading Native American sculptors to render them immortal - then they must have done so by HAVING SOMETHING ON the locals, culturally. Some items of Old World culture would have had to give them an advantage over pre-Olmec Mesoamericans. Well, what items were they? Millet or cattle or bronzemaking? And if they had such items, *where were they in 1492*? Why hadn't they diffused far and wide throughout Native America, the way the Spaniards' horses did, far beyond the writ of the King of Spain? _____________________________________________________________
It appears that the Mande speaking Olmecs spread the use of Maize in West Africa. According to Jeffreys, the origin myths for the cultivation of Maize moves in West Africa from west to East. It is interesting to note that the Mayan term for maize is of Mande origin.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Africans have rarely passed on diseases to other people.
It was the Europeans who spread death to other people. Europeans even took the cold to the Eckimos. It was the European use of diseases that allowed the Spanish to conquer the Meso-American people who fell dead to diseases before they could even fight.
Yeah, malaria and yellow fever were just figments of the imagination that didn't start in Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: It appears that the Mande speaking Olmecs spread the use of Maize in West Africa. According to Jeffreys, the origin myths for the cultivation of Maize moves in West Africa from west to East. It is interesting to note that the Mayan term for maize is of Mande origin.
So the people of the Americas were waiting for the magical mande to come over and name their food. With a name that existed in Africa for a food that was not yet there. Gotcha.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Africans have rarely passed on diseases to other people.
It was the Europeans who spread death to other people. Europeans even took the cold to the Eckimos. It was the European use of diseases that allowed the Spanish to conquer the Meso-American people who fell dead to diseases before they could even fight.
The natives had no resistance to smallpox, influenza, or plague or even to mild (to us) diseases like measles. Entire populations were virtually wiped out, with some Atlantic coast tribes losing 90 percent of their adult members. Some historians go so far as to say European diseases reduced the pre-contact population of the New World as a whole by 90 percent or more. One says the population of central Mexico was reduced from 25 million in 1519 to 3 million by 1568 and only 750,000 by the early 1600s, 3 percent of the pre-conquest total.
Granted, some of these horrifying numbers may be arrived at by exaggerating the size of the original population. One researcher says there were 18 million people living north of Mexico before Columbus, but a more conservative estimate puts it at four million and some say only 1 million. Maybe there were only 12.5 million precolumbian Mexicans, not 25 million. Even so we're talking 94 percent mortality for central Mexico, maybe 87 percent for the Americas overall, reducing the population from 80 million in 1500 to 10 million 50 years later. One can make a good case that it was European germs rather than European military prowess that conquered the New World. One can also argue that disease led to the African slave trade. The conquistadors would have been happy to enslave local labor except that it was dead.
Why were the natives so vulnerable? The best guess is that Europe had been a crossroads for war and commerce for millennia and so had encountered an extraordinary number of pestilences, while the Americas were isolated and had not. Europeans had also spent a long time around domestic animals, which were the source of many of the most virulent diseases to afflict humans in the Old World. In contrast, native Americans had few domestic animals. As a consequence Europeans had developed some resistance to disease but native Americans hadn't.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mestizaje allows(ed) for the diffusion of all native group. Argentina over 150 years ago had one of the larger populations of Africans but suddenly they 'disappeared'. One reason is intermarriage, the second wars between republics, migration to better areas for quality of life (Uruguay or Brazil) or association with native groups.
Even when one mentions that the tango has African roots and origin (naming and dance) many point that there are no blacks in Argentina so it is impossible and made up!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In addition to propelling the establishment of Christianity in Mexico and Latin America, viruses played a role in enlarging the African slave trade throughout the Americas. African blacks are relatively resistant to yellow fever virus, whereas Caucasians and native Americans are much more susceptible. Because so many native Americans had died from yellow fever, too few workers remained to do chores in the fields and mines. The Spaniards then imported black slaves as labor replacements (3). The net result was expansion of black slave importation to the Americas (4); ironically, the yellow fever virus initially came from Africa aboard trading and slave ships.
In addition to Spain, other European countries staked out colonies in the Americas. The French colonized Haiti and, in keeping with their observation that the Africans resisted infection by yellow fever and therefore were stronger workers, used primarily black labor for their plantations. But viruses altered human history again when black slaves revolted in the early years of the nineteenth century. To put down that uprising, Napoleon sent over 27,000 crack troops to Haiti. Before long, the vast majority of these French men came in contact with the yellow fever virus transmitted by mosquitos and died from the infection. This huge loss influenced the decision not to risk the even larger numbers of troops necessary to protect other French territories in the New World and was one of the major considerations leading Napoleon to negotiate the sale of the Louisiana Territory to the United States (5).
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by yazid904: Mestizaje allows(ed) for the diffusion of all native group. Argentina over 150 years ago had one of the larger populations of Africans but suddenly they 'disappeared'. One reason is intermarriage, the second wars between republics, migration to better areas for quality of life (Uruguay or Brazil) or association with native groups.
Even when one mentions that the tango has African roots and origin (naming and dance) many point that there are no blacks in Argentina so it is impossible and made up!
The name for sure. But the dance was a creole dance, It came from the havanera which was synccretic of African and European dances. The name Tango was a generic name used for many dances with drumbeats.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
rasol quote : ________________________________________________________ ^ Are you saying Maize originates in Africa? _____________________________________________________________
No. Jeffrey in a 1971 article published in the Journal of African Hisrtory on the origin of maize in Africa discussed the fact that use of maize in West Africa appears to have spread from the west to the east. Maize originated in MesoAmerica.
......
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
sidirom quote: ____________________________________________________________ So the people of the Americas were waiting for the magical mande to come over and name their food. With a name that existed in Africa for a food that was not yet there. Gotcha. ________________________________________________________________
The Maya got much of their civilization from the Olmecs. If the Olmec cultivated maize first, they could have named the crop and the Maya nativized the lexical item in their culture vocabulary. Later when the Olmec took the crop back to West Africa other groups began to call maize by the same name originally coined by the Olmec, Xi people.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Correct me if I'm wrong but these illnesses are spread by insects, not humans.
Not only that, but Malaria [P. falciparum spread from person to person by mosquito bites, and with and MRCA of over 100ky and so as old as homo-sapiens] is endemic to southern Europe, and Spanish Seafarers were known to carry it, regardless, and certainly helped to spread it directly, but moreover, there is a profound irony here:
The difference between Indians and Spaniards is this:
Southern Europeans, like Africans have a stronger resistence to Malaria.
That's in part, because Southern Europeans, have recent Black African ancestry.
This is evidenced specifically by sickle cell morphology among many other factors - the principal selective advantage of sickle cell is that it prevents malaria.
Sickle cell in Europe is specifically due to inherited West African ancestry [Benin Hbs autosome], as shown......
Black Africans don't give southern Europeans malaria; but they do give southern Europeans resistence to it - which perversely, allowed them to spread it.
Blaming African slaves for this, is as sad and sick as blaming Indian women the Spaniards raped for spreading venereal diseases.
Only a complete idiot, such as Salassin, a sick obsessive trolling nut-case, who was banned from this forum, would argue such a thing - which is why I ignore him.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
rasol quote: _____________________________________________________________ Not only that, but Malaria [P. falciparum spread from person to person by mosquito bites, and with and MRCA of over 100ky and so as old as homo-sapiens] is endemic to southern Europe, and Spanish Seafarers were known to carry it, regardless, and certainly helped to spread it directly, but moreover, there is a profound irony here:
The difference between Indians and Spaniards is this:
Southern Europeans, like Africans have a stronger resistence to Malaria.
That's in part, because Southern Europeans, have recent Black African ancestry.
This is evidenced specifically by sickle cell morphology among many other factors - the principal selective advantage of sickle cell is that it prevents malaria.
Sickle cell in Europe is specifically due to inherited West African ancestry [Benin Hbs autosome], as shown......
Haplotype analysis has demonstrated that the sickle-cell trait in Sicily, northern Greece, and western Arabia is in linkage disequilibrium with the Benin haplotype in western central Africa.
This constitutes *direct evidence for gene flow* linked to human migration FROM central Africa TO Mediterranean Europe in *historical times*.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
She_it. Banning don't count for much if the banned just come back under a new name yet retain the same IP address. SidiRom does at least add a little variety even though the troll is unteachable. At times he even manages to hit the target though far far away from its bullseye.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Salassin, a sick obsessive trolling nut-case, who was banned from this forum, would argue such a thing - which is why I ignore him.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
The Maya got much of their civilization from the Olmecs. If the Olmec cultivated maize first, they could have named the crop and the Maya nativized the lexical item in their culture vocabulary. Later when the Olmec took the crop back to West Africa other groups began to call maize by the same name originally coined by the Olmec, Xi people.
Entertaining. But most people who arrive to a new place and see new food usually bastardise the original name. But the mande came found a food with people who already named it but made one of their own. Gotcha.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Not only that, but Malaria [P. falciparum spread from person to person by mosquito bites, and with and MRCA of over 100ky and so as old as homo-sapiens] is endemic to southern Europe, and Spanish Seafarers were known to carry it, regardless, and certainly helped to spread it directly,
The levels were not as high, and the spead of it definitely shows African influence as well. Like all the Napoleonic Soldiers getting sick. But either way, the disease is African and spread to Europe.
quote: but moreover, there is a profound irony here: The difference between Indians and Spaniards is this: Southern Europeans, like Africans have a stronger resistence to Malaria. That's in part, because Southern Europeans, have recent Black African ancestry. This is evidenced specifically by sickle cell morphology among many other factors - the principal selective advantage of sickle cell is that it prevents malaria. Sickle cell in Europe is specifically due to inherited West African ancestry [Benin Hbs autosome], as shown......
No disagreement there. Which is more evidence that Africans were not in the Americas before and did not pass immunity to Native Americans
quote:Black Africans don't give southern Europeans malaria; but they do give southern Europeans resistence to it - which perversely, allowed them to spread it.
They did, and the resistence as well.
quote:Blaming African slaves for this, is as sad and sick as blaming Indian women the Spaniards raped for spreading venereal diseases.
Nice try at a strawman and irrelevant to the discussion.
quote:Only a complete idiot, such as Salassin, a sick obsessive trolling nut-case, who was banned from this forum, would argue such a thing - which is why I ignore him.
Whatever rasshole, you throw insults like a baby and try to claim maturity.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: She_it. Banning don't count for much if the banned just come back under a new name yet retain the same IP address. SidiRom does at least add a little variety even though the troll is unteachable. At times he even manages to hit the target though far far away from its bullseye.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Salassin, a sick obsessive trolling nut-case, who was banned from this forum, would argue such a thing - which is why I ignore him.
The childish tag team is entertaining Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
sidirom quote: ________________________________________________________________ Entertaining. But most people who arrive to a new place and see new food usually bastardise the original name. But the mande came found a food with people who already named it but made one of their own. Gotcha. _________________________________________________________________
Good point! This could be a possibility, but what if the Mande/Olmec had began cultivation of maize, while the Mayan people used it as part of their hunter-gatherer subsistence pattern.
If this was the case given the pretige nature of the Olmecs and their language, the Maya, may have adopted the name for maize, as they adopted Olmec architecture, writing, and other culture features.
.......
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Good point! This could be a possibility, but what if the Mande/Olmec had began cultivation of maize, while the Mayan people used it as part of their hunter-gatherer subsistence pattern.
Ah yes, the great mande had to teach the poor injuns how to farm.
quote:If this was the case given the pretige nature of the Olmecs and their language, the Maya, may have adopted the name for maize, as they adopted Olmec architecture, writing, and other culture features.
Only problem is if the Olmecs were foreigner they wouldn't have a name for the plant in the first place.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Banning don't count for much if the banned just come back under a new name yet retain the same IP address. SidiRom does at least add a little variety even though the troll is unteachable.
Yep.
You'd be surprised how many times I quote you when you are actually sensible.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Banning don't count for much if the banned just come back under a new name yet retain the same IP address. SidiRom does at least add a little variety even though the troll is unteachable.
Salassin in his ranting idiocy refers to malaria as and "African disease", yet Malaria is spread around the tropical world - where he is supposedly trying to deny African agency. Whoops.
Or maybe he meant to suggest that sickle cell is and African disease, but this too is wrong, and besides, sickle cell exists in India, where he also trying to deny African agency.
Yes another screw up.
The banned troll is at least amusing, in his sheer desparate prattling incoherence.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Salassin in his ranting idiocy refers to malaria as and "African disease", yet Malaria is spread around the tropical world - where he is supposedly trying to deny African agency. Whoops.
Earliest cases are still most likely Africa.
quote:Or maybe he meant to suggest that sickle cell is and African disease, but this too is wrong, and besides, sickle cell exists in India, where he also trying to deny African agency. Another screw up.
Nice try. The Sidi have been to India. SO that is one possible way of transmission. Your gif even sais so.
Rasshole keeps shtting bricks in his pedantic attempts at showing brilliance.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Malaria is a protozoal disease transmitted by the Anopheles mosquito, caused by minute parasitic protozoa of the genus Plasmodium, which infect human and insect hosts alternatively. It is a very old disease and prehistoric man is thought to have suffered from malaria. It probably originated in Africa and accompanied human migration to the Mediterranean shores, India and South East Asia. In the past it used to be common in the marshy areas around Rome and the name is derived from the Italian, (mal-aria) or "bad air"; it was also known as Roman fever. Today some 500 hundred million people in Africa, India, South East Asia and South America are exposed to endemic malaria and it is estimated to cause two and a half million deaths annually, one million of which are children.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Malaria is A VERY OLD DISEASE - it probably originated in Africa and accompanied human migration to the Mediterranean shores, India and South East Asia
^ The hapless troll fails as usual to comprehend what this means:
Malaria itself *precedes Out of Africa*, and is only African in that *all humans* are African.
If you attribute Malaria to being spread by "Africans" - then you have to consider ALL the Southern Asians and Medits., who carried it - ie - the original populations- as AFRICAN, on that basis - because *their ancestors carried it*.
But - you can't have it both ways.
Many of the earliest attested cases of malaria are actually from Ancient Europe:
It is likely that BOTH European settlers and slavery brought malaria to the New World
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Banning don't count for much if the banned just come back under a new name yet retain the same IP address. SidiRom does at least add a little variety even though the troll is unteachable.
Salassin in his ranting idiocy refers to malaria as and "African disease", yet Malaria is spread around the tropical world - where he is supposedly trying to deny African agency. Whoops.
Or maybe he meant to suggest that sickle cell is and African disease, but this too is wrong, and besides, sickle cell exists in India, where he also trying to deny African agency.
Yes another screw up.
The banned troll is at least amusing, in his sheer desparate prattling incoherence.
The habanero is specifically cuban, de la habana. The tango began as an African dance mimicked by the Europeans in Argentina. As time progressed it became criollo then the French (Carlos Gardel) began to transform it as it became more Europeanized due to foreign immigration.
Same thing with what we know as salsa today. It began as Afro-Caribbean music (speciifcally Cuba) and the as specific rhythms became mroe mainstream, the whites began to flock to it! and eat it up like how blues and jazz began in USA!
la verdad, compay, punto e aparte!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Maize or corn is of HUMAN origin cultivated from the modification of Teosinte(the smallest seed at the top of the picture).
Evolution of Maize Agriculture
Corn or maize (zea mays) is a domesticated plant of the Americas. Along with many other indigenous plants like beans, squash, melons, tobacco, and roots such as Jerusalem artichoke, European colonists in America quickly adopted maize agriculture from Native Americans. Crops developed by Native Americans quickly spread to other parts of the world as well.
Native American Origins of Maize
Many Native American traditions, stories and ceremonies surround corn, one of the "three sisters" (maize, beans and squash). Even in New England there are many variations on how maize was brought or introduced to Native Americans here. Generally in southern New England, maize is described as a gift of Cautantowwit, a deity associated with the southwestern direction; that kernels of maize and beans were delivered by the crow, or in other versions the black-bird. Responsible for bringing maize, the crow would not be harmed even for damaging the cornfield. Other Algonquian legends recount maize brought by a person sent from the Great Spirit as a gift of thanks.
The banned troll is at least amusing, in his sheer desparate prattling incoherence.
I suspect that SidiRom may have been receiving some private correspondence from Horemheb, another notorious troll; won't be the first time that this has happened here with trolls.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
^Ineducable banned trolls fail to provide links to try and HIDE the fact that the very sources they cite expose their own idiocy. When are they going to learn, it doesn't work? Link to: History of Malaria Malaria is A VERY OLD DISEASE - it probably originated in Africa and accompanied human migration to the Mediterranean shores, India and South East Asia
Nice try. Its origins are still African. The calim was that Africans did not have communicable diseases. The fact that Malaria did not travel to the new world speaks to the fact that it wasn't in all of the continents when people migrated to the Americans. As well as the fact that immunity is concentrated in certain populations. And sickle cell is not the only immunity developed.
And I still see you harping on this and avoiding Yellow Fever.
quote:Malaria itself *precedes Out of Africa*, and is only African in that *all humans* are African.
Could be, but it is still of AFRICAN origin and you still have to expalin its absence in Native American populations before Olde World arrival
And I see you are still avoiding Yellow Fever.
quote:If you attribute Malaria to being spread by "Africans" - then you have to consider ALL the Southern Asians and Medits., who carried it - ie - the original populations- as AFRICAN, on that basis.
Nice try. Cute sacapegoat. I never attributed Malaria as only being brought by Africans. I said it was an African Origin disease. I quoted that Yellow Fever was brought over from Africa by merchant and Slave ships. Something you have still to address.
Your attempts to obfuscate the issue are what is amusing. Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hotep2u: Generally in southern New England, maize is described as a gift of Cautantowwit, a deity associated with the southwestern direction; that kernels of maize and beans were delivered by the crow, or in other versions the black-bird. Responsible for bringing maize, the crow would not be harmed even for damaging the cornfield. Other Algonquian legends recount maize brought by a person sent from the Great Spirit as a gift of thanks.
Hotep [/QB]
Did this post even have a point? SO now the crow is African?
Plus, go read about where Maize was first domesticated. It was in Mexico, not by New England Native AMericans. No crow traditional stories with corn in Mexico. Try again. Corn was domesticated 5,500 years ago. way before the Olmecs.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
The banned troll is at least amusing, in his sheer desparate prattling incoherence.
I suspect that SidiRom may have been receiving some private correspondence from Horemheb, another notorious troll; won't be the first time that this has happened here with trolls.
He is the banned troll Salassin.
Under pressure - he still starts every post with 'nice try' or some other smarmy nervous-tick response as if suffering from a communication disorder such as autism.
He is very easy to recognise.
I guess we have to ignore the mentally ill troll until the forum moderators catch on, and ban him again.
Meanwhile, for the real discussants:
Ancient Population Expansion of [Malaria] Plasmodium vivax Somchai Jongwutiwes, Chaturong Putaporntip, Takuya Iwasaki.
The pairwise distribution of nucleotide differences among mitochondrial genome sequences supported the hypothesis that [Malarial] parasites underwent ancient population expansions.
We estimated the age of the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of the mitochondrial genomes of both P. vivax and P. falciparum at around 200,000-300,000 years ago. This is close to previous estimates of the time of the human mitochondrial MRCA and the origin of modern Homo sapiens, consistent with the hypothesis that both of these Plasmodium species were parasites of the hominid lineage before the origin of modern Homo sapiens and that their population expansion coincided with the population expansion of their host.
Malaria is generally transmuted by insect bites, and is native to the indigenous tropical modern homo-sapiens in Eurasia. That's why even the Andaman Islanders have it, and they have been biologically isolated from Africans for 50, 000 years.
To call malaria African is to call all these people - 100's of millions of Asians, from Javanese to Japanese -> "African" as well, since *their* ancestors carried malaria into Asia with them.
Banned troll Salassin doesn't get this because he is simply too stupid to grasp any subtle fact.
*Unless* one takes the position of Clyde Winters that all non African Blacks have [recent] African ancestry, which would be false at any rate, or one is a banned troll suffering from a learning disorder causing one to:
* stupidly repeat non-sequiturs * completely miss the point, * and/or admit defeat, by attempting to change the subject
as Salassin does below......>
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still African in origin. And you still haven't addressed Yellow Fever.
Yellow fever is caused by a virus and is spread by the yellowfever mosquito, Aedes aegypti (L.). The disease, which originated in Africa and spread to the New World during the slave trade in the 1500s, affects humans as well as monkeys. Typically, yellow fever is expressed within one week of infection. Mild symptoms include headaches, fever, muscular pains, and nausea. Severe symptoms include dangerously high fevers, severe headaches, muscular pains, jaundice, and vomiting (characterized by black material and fluid). Yellow fever can lead to delirium, coma, and death.
Yellow fever and the yellowfever mosquito are thought to have originated in Africa. It was brought to the New World on slave ships in the 1500s. Yellow fever ravaged Europeans in the New World. Buckley (1985) stated, "The West Indies was, quite simply, a deathtrap for whites without immunity to yellow fever." The British were repeatedly stung by the disease in the Caribbean and South America. In 1741, during an expedition to capture Peru and Mexico, British forces were reduced from 27,000 to 7,000 by the dreaded disease they called "black vomit." Coastal towns and hamlets in the United States were particularly vulnerable to the disease in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Even as late as 1878, a yellow fever epidemic struck more than 100 United States towns, killing at least 20,000 people.
posted
Sorry Salsa, but Rasol has answered you on the issue of Malaria and you have been thrashed as usual.
Now getting back to the topic at hand, Mr Winters is also wrong as usual in associating blacks with Africans let alone 'Saharan'-West Africans.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Sorry Salsa, but Rasol has answered you on the issue of Malaria and you have been thrashed as usual. Now getting back to the topic at hand, Mr Winters is also wrong as usual in associating blacks with Africans let alone 'Saharan'-West Africans.
Sorry, but he has not. Malaria is an African disease. Prehistoric or not. (in fact its being so old is even more important because Clyde can't claim old Mandes weren't exposed toit) Its presence in Africa is key. Why? Because like Yellow Fever, if Africans had come of before, then Malaria and Yellow fever would have had a presence,and it didn't. Also, as to malaria, Rasol pointed out that Southern Europe had sickle cell because of African contact. But we do not see this sickle cell anemia in Native American populations.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic