posted
Do we really need the ideology called Afrocentrism? This is mainly directed at Clyde Winters, but general, whats the real use and purpose of Afrocentrism? Why not just focus on what the truth is? Genetic study after study, along with recent anthropological information is continually nailing the coffin shut on the ideology called "Eurocentrism". I think Afrocentrism isn't needed and never was. Comments?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Do we really need the ideology called Afrocentrism? This is mainly directed at Clyde Winters, but general, whats the real use and purpose of Afrocentrism? Why not just focus on what the truth is? Genetic study after study, along with recent anthropological information is continually nailing the coffin shut on the ideology called "Eurocentrism". I think Afrocentrism isn't needed and never was. Comments?
Yes we still need Afrocentrism because of the lack self-esteem found among Blacks who don't know their history around the world. Afrocentrism allows one to fight White Supremacy while spreading the truth.
quote: Ghanaian Students Relate Attractiveness, Success to Fair Skin
The image of the blonde, blue-eyed woman as the epitome of beauty is no stranger to American culture. Indeed, many experts suggest that lighter-skinned Americans enjoy societal advantages over darker-skinned individuals because of culture-driven perceptions. The perceptions are believed to extend to such qualities as opportunity, power and acceptance.
But these cultural forces are not unique to America and, in fact, can be seen throughout the world, according to Jocelyn Mackey, an assistant professor of psychology at Southern Connecticut State University. Mackey recently completed two studies that examine such perceptions among students aged 8 to 18 in Ghana. Despite a population in which 98 percent of its citizens are black, the students consistently equated attractiveness, opportunity, power and acceptance with having fair skin.
The studies were launched last summer and presented to the National Association of School Psychologists in late March. Mackey’s research has been accepted for presentation at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association to be held in August. Mackey said that previous studies have shown that even among olive- and brown-skinned populations, such as in South America, Central America, Italy, the Caribbean, India and Asia, there seem to be cultural biases toward lighter-skinned individuals. But she said the results of these studies are perhaps even more of a concern because the Ghanaian population is almost exclusively black-skinned.
“Certainly, the results from this study speak to the impact that the social and cultural climate has on the self-esteem of the Ghanaian students,” Mackey said. “But you also have to keep in mind that Accra is the capital city and its population has been more exposed than most of the country to Western culture and its ideals of beauty and success.” She also suggested that Ghana’s status as a former British colony (achieving its independence in 1957) may have contributed to the results, as well. Mackey says the Western-based ideals are, indeed, global. “The perceptions are the result of learned behavior and beliefs due to social factors and opportunities, rather than simply a preference for a lighter skin tone,” Mackey says. “People of color are largely aware of their innate beauty, but this recognition is tempered by the reality of how a person is perceived within their own group and by society as a whole. Many Ghanaians who I spoke with believe that lighter skin is associated with wealth and power, and then the other positive characteristics, such as attractiveness, flow from those perceptions.”
Mackey distributed questionnaires to more than 200 students from two schools in Accra, the Ghanaian capital. One school was public, while the other was private. They were given a series of questions related to attractiveness, familiarity, wealth, nurturance, academic ability and social acceptance. The first study asked students to relate certain qualities to one of the five dolls – who were placed on a continuum from very light skinned to very dark skinned and were presented to the students. Generally, the lightest skin doll was associated most often with various positive characteristics. The second study asked the same questions and gave the students a choice between only two dolls – the lightest-skinned doll and the darkest-skinned doll. Again, the students associated the lighter doll with the positive characteristics. The results of the second study were similar to those from studies designed by Kenneth and Mamie Clark during the 1940s in the United States. The Clarks were called upon as expert witnesses during the landmark 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education case, which led to the banning of segregation laws across the nation. Mackey said the Clarks’ studies helped to show that the previous legal standard of “separate but equal” was, in effect, a contradiction because of the low self-esteem demonstrated by the African-American students at that time. Mackey said that before the studies, she thought the darker-skinned dolls would have scored higher in the areas of nurturance, academic performance and familiarity, but that the lighter-skinned dolls would have scored higher in questions related to opportunity and economics. But almost across the board, the lighter-skinned dolls scored more highly.
A notable exception was with regard to the “smartest” dolls. In the second study, the darkest-skinned dolls were a close second to the lightest, but in the second study, the darker-skinned doll was considered smarter than the lighter-skinned doll. Yet, both portions of the study showed the white dolls are associated with the best chance of going to college and getting the best grades. [b] Age and gender were a factor in the studies with older students and males more likely than younger students and females to select the darker-skinned dolls, but all demographic groups generally favored the lighter-skinned dolls. Mackey also said that private school students tended to select the lighter-skinned dolls in slightly larger numbers than their public school counterparts in the second study. [b] “I have a tremendous amount of respect for Ghanaian culture and would love to go back to Ghana to do a follow-up study with students in the more rural areas of the country,” Mackey said. •
This article makes it clear that Eurocentrism is not dead. The same motivations for J.A. Rogers, Diop and DuBois that led to their research in Afrocentrism exist today.
Genetics have not changed the minds of most Blacks (and whites for that matter)--even on the continent where they are the majority. White supremacy is alive and well.
Yes indeed we need Afrocentrism. To help Blacks know their history and develop self-esteem in their Black selfness.
quote:Clyde Winters: Yes we still need Afrocentrism because of the lack self-esteem found among Blacks who don't know their history around the world. Afrocentrism allows one to fight White Supremacy while spreading the truth.
Talk for yourself, most blacks don't have low self-esteem. Truth is better than centrism, since "centrism" implies that you are only centering around issues which supports your agenda and discarding the rest of the truth, like having a tunnel vision. At the end of the day this will only result with you lying to yourself.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Neither Rogers nor DuBois labeled themselves Afrocentric. Hansberry did (or was so labeled by his post humous editor).
At first I thought Africentrism was merely writing Africana while seeing through African eyes.
Now, however, It appears since the early 1990's that Afrocentrism is just another form of ethnocentrism.
Some clearly demarc a difference between Africentrism and Afrocentricity.
Whatever.
Africana, a term I once refused, seems fine and descriptive enough for studies in any discipline whose focus is on things African.
I can be pro-Africa/African/Afrikan without being Afro-ethnocentric or black supremist.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Now, however, It appears since the early 1990's that Afrocentrism is just another form of ethnocentrism.
Plese provide examples of how Afrocentrism is a form of ethnocentrism.
Also explain how the emphasis on this forum that the Egyptians were Black-Africans, is not the highest form of etnocentrism, i.e., favoring one's own ethnic group.
Afrocentrism on the otherhand is a branch of ethnology, a science that deals with the origin, distribution,relations and characteristics of human races.
.
alTakruri
quote:
I can be pro-Africa/African/Afrikan without being Afro-ethnocentric or black supremist.
You are suppose to be African/Black. You claim the Egyptians were African Sub-Saharans= Black.
This is evidence that you are Afro-ethnocentric and a black supremist--if one is a black-supremist simply because s/he finds textual and scientific evidence that indicates this or that group were Black.
Some clearly demarc a difference between Africentrism and Afrocentricity.
You are right there is a difference between Afrocentrism and Afrocentricity. Researchers who practice Afrocentrism and others who practice Afrocentricity
Molefi Kete Asante has observered that Afrocentricity is the theorectical perspective found on a African centered consciousness that locates African behaviors within the context of African psychological, cultural and sociological experiences and agency. As a result, it is not the data being used to examine an African phenomenon , it is the approach the researcher uses to illuminate and understand that phenomenon. As a result of this method of research young Afrocentrists spend their time conducting research based on Asante's 5 Characteristics of Afrocentricity: (1) an intense interest in psychological location as determined by symbols, motifs, rituals, and signs; (2) a commitment to finding the subject-place of Africans in any social, political, economic, architectural, literary, or religious phenomenon with implications for questions of sex, gender, and class; 3) a defense of African cultural elements as historically valid in the context of art, music, education, science and literature; (4) a celebration of centeredness and agency and a commitment to lexical refinement that eliminates pejoratives about Africans or other people; (5) a powerful imperative from historical sources to revise the collective text of African people.
If you look at the argumentation of posters to this form who follow the methods of Afrocentricity, they usually reject any discussion of data from the field of social science or physical science unless it has been given the okay by the Egyptocentric scholars they admire or have been endorced by whites e.g., Keita. They practice their craft based on Afrocentricity. They prefer to research Egypt because their principal "teachers", or authors of the research they read are Egyptocentric.
W. E. B. DuBois, J. C. DeGraft-Johnson, Chancellor Williams, and Cheikh Anta Diop practiced Afrocentrism, they recognize that you can apply social science research methods, as a heuristic to uncover the history of Black and African people. Molefi Kete Asante practice Afrocentricity as he explains in : http://www.worldagesarchive.com/Reference_Links/Afrocentricity.htm
In this paper Asante makes it clear he does not practice Afrocentrism, the craft of W.E.B. DuBois and Anta Diop. We can define Afrocentrism, as adherence to principles and theories related to the idea that African and World history originated on the African continent and moved outward from Africa through the human agency of Africans speaking related languages and practicing a shared culture, who founded the first civilizations of Africa, the Americas, Europe and Asia. The methods of Afrocentrism are based on application of science through use of the academic disciplines of Anthropology, Archaeology, History, Genetics, and Linguistics.
Anta Diop
The Afrocentrists who practice Afrocentricity do not believe they should use these methods because they have a commitment to finding the subject-place of Africans in any social, political, economic, architectural, literary, or religious phenomenon. This is one of the reasons they do not conduct original research.
Afrocentrists who practiced Afrocentrism were trained in a traditional research oriented Social Science or the Humanities. Granted, J.A. Rogers and John Jackson were not formerly trained as anthropologists and/or ethnographers. They were successful in their research because they mastered the Knowledge base necessary to conduct anthropological research.
J.A. Rogers
Some people claim that researchers who practice Afrocentricity are lazy. Members of this research group base most of their baseline knowledge on what they have read in a book—unaware that the latest research comes from research articles. They do not form the knowledge base necessary to do original research, or learn the necessary foreign languages to conduct research in ancient African or Black World History.
Many researchers who practice Afrocentricity claim to follow Diop, but they fail to study his methods of Afrocentrism and employ them in their own research, instead they conduct research according to the 5 characteristics of Afrocentricity. If they studied Diop's work they would spend more time expanding their knowledge base instead of conducting research based on Afrocentricity. In 1974, Harun Kofi Wangara, in an interview with Cheikh Anta Diop (Black World, Feb.1974, pp.53-61, recorded Diop's views on researching Afrocentric history. In this interview Diop observed that "…I think that it will be necessary to put together polyvalent scientific teams, capable of doing in-depth studies , for sure, and that's important. It bothers me when someone takes me on my word without developing a means of verifying what I say….We must form a scientific spirit, capable of seeing even the weaknesses of our own proofs, of seeing the unfinished side of our work and of committing ourselves to completing it. You understand? Therefore we should then have a work which could honestly stand criticism, because what we've done would have been placed on a scientific plane".
Today we need Afrocentrists who practice Afrocentricity to learn more about Afrocentrism. Afrocentrism is based on the study of Blacks throughout the world. The methods used to study Afrocentrism are anthropology, archaeology, history and linguistics. J.A. Rogers and J.G.Jackson were masters of anthropological knowledge about Black people. W.E.B. DuBois was the founder of the field of Afrocentric Ancient Studies of History. C.A. Diop used linguistics and anthropology to study the African past as did G.W. Parker in relation to Blacks in Greece.
W.E.B. DuBois
J.A. Rogers,in Sex and Race C.A. Diop, and W.E.B. DuBois, in The World and Africa, and The Negro used historical methods to make it clear that Blacks do have a HISTORY. And Th. Obenga, and C.A. Diop, in Nouvelles recherches sur l'egyptien ancien et les langues negro-africaines modernes, and Parente genetique de l'eyptien pharaonique et des langue Negro-africaines; used regular historical and comparative linguistic methods to explain the ancient connections between contemporary African groups and ancient Black culture bearers like the Egyptians .
J.A. Rogers used ethnography to confirm the history Blacks in the ancient world. Roger's Sex and Race, is the best example of the use of ethnographic methods to explore the role of Blacks in ancient times.
The study of artifacts discovered through archaeological excavations(in Egypt and Mesopotamia) and skeletal remains were used by Hansberry, DuBois and J.A. Rogers. These researchers took this information to elaborate our understanding about the culture and history of the Blacks who founded civilization. John G. Jackson, in Man God and Civilization, provides the most detailed use of archaeological findings to explain and discuss details about the ancient civilizations founded by Blacks.
John G. Jackson
Linguistic research to confirm the ancient history of Blacks has only recently been used in Afrocentric research. The first person to use linguistic methods to explore the ancient history of Blacks was George Wells Parker. Parker used anthropological, archaeological, historical and classical sources to prove that blacks once lived in the Aegean.
G. W. Parker
After Parker, C.A. Diop began the use of anthropological evidence, and linguistics to confirm the two major paradigms associated with the study of ancient Afrocentric history. Diop's work has been concerned with confirming the African origin of Egyptian civilization. There are many followers of this tradition in French speaking West Africa, the leading researcher in this field is Theophile Obenga. These researchers conducted original research that stands today confirmed.
Eurocentric and liberal historians maintain that we should reject Afrocentrism because it is science used to promote self-esteem among African and Black people. Stephen Howe, in Afrocentrism, maintains that Afrocentric history is romance-bound, i.e., a history based on conjecture and myth making, rather than factually grounded in evidence and critical analysis of the records of the past.
The main problem with this view of Diop , and other Afrocentric researchers who practice Afrocentricity discussed in Howe's book, is that Howe fails to provided any contemporary or "dated" references which disconfirm the sources used by Diop. The absence of counter evidences to Diop's research makes any of Howe's comments about the inadequacies of Afrocentric research groundless.
The fact that Howe can demand that we reject Afrocentrism without any evidence falsifying the claims of Afrocentric social scientists, make it clear that the scientific method, which is suppose to be the preserve of "professional historians" is not recognized when there is a discussion of Afrocentric historical claims. I often even hear some "Afrocentric" leaning researchers claim that Diop made mistakes, but like Howe they never present the evidence to support their claims.
In summary, researchers practicing Afrocentrism use anthropology, archaeology and linguistic research to confirm the historical evidence of Blacks in ancient history.
Generally we can define Afrocentrism as the study of history, anthropology etc., from a perspective that centers research on the African actors involved in the area of research under study. Researchers practicing Afrocentrism do not base their research solely on Asante’s 5 Characteristics of Afrocentricity. Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Truth is better than centrism, since "centrism" implies that you are only centering around issues which supports your agenda and discarding the rest of the truth, like having a tunnel vision. At the end of the day this will only result with you lying to yourself
Please provide specific examples of this tunnel vision found in the works of Afrocentric researchers--and how they withheld the truth. Include a full citation of the work and explain how what was written was not based on the state-of-art research existing when a particular Afrocentric work was produced.
posted
Now this is an intriguing question. We live in an Eurocentric world--no doubt about it. From geography to genetics. And even cultures with long and impressive pedigrees have not been immune from infection and contamination.
Take China: the Chines have a long tradition of different types of clothing but its dominant classes have jettisoned that for the drab Western suit(encasement) and tie(a string around the neck--which could suggest discomfort)--not to mention Western shoes and clothing for women.
Cosmetic surgery is also popular with the Chinese who have the means: putting a bridge in their generally flat noses and rounding out their eyes. There is tradition of lighter complexions having more status so modern skin lightening products for those who need it carries on that tradition.
The thing with Eurocentrism though is that those who daily advance its cause--from the daily media to films to literature--never ever call themselves Eurocentric. One of the purposes of Western Eurocentric culture is to keep on slamming Africa's populations--in spite of the progress report of Africans themeselves. The reason is that the mainstream West sees African populations in the same way it viewed Communism. Just slam it regardless of whatever it has achieved. The goal is "full spectrum dominance" at all costs. And the propaganda hammer will fall on anyone or group that objects to this.
But those who support Afrocentrism usually say so openly and that's where the Eurocentrics reach for their biggest hammers.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Yes we still need Afrocentrism because of the lack self-esteem found among Blacks who don't know their history around the world. Afrocentrism allows one to fight White Supremacy while spreading the truth.
The truth should be all thats needed, why use ideology that can sometimes be based on lies to boost self esteem? I don't thik many blacks have low self esteem.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's be perfectly clear about what I am saying out of my mouth (not what contortionist wish to twist my words to their own ends).
I am not ethnocentric -- I do not believe my ethny is the center of the world, the ethny to judge and measure every other ethny.
I am not black supremist -- I do not believe blacks (or any other colour groupings) are spiritually, intellectually, physically, culturally, or any other way superior.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: alTakruri
quote:
Now, however, It appears since the early 1990's that Afrocentrism is just another form of ethnocentrism.
Plese provide examples of how Afrocentrism is a form of ethnocentrism.
Also explain how the emphasis on this forum that the Egyptians were Black-Africans, is not the highest form of etnocentrism, i.e., favoring one's own ethnic group.
Afrocentrism on the otherhand is a branch of ethnology, a science that deals with the origin, distribution,relations and characteristics of human races.
.
alTakruri
quote:
I can be pro-Africa/African/Afrikan without being Afro-ethnocentric or black supremist.
You are suppose to be African/Black. You claim the Egyptians were African Sub-Saharans= Black.
This is evidence that you are Afro-ethnocentric and a black supremist--if one is a black-supremist simply because s/he finds textual and scientific evidence that indicates this or that group were Black.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
But those who support Afrocentrism usually say so openly and that's where the Eurocentrics reach for their biggest hammers.
This is true. But in most cases the big boys rarely attack Afrocentrism openly. I have attended many AAA and World Archaeology conferences where I have presented my work on the Olmecs and Indus Valley writing and not one establish scholar will make a negative comment, eventhough they will be seating in the same conference room.
They won't argue or attack my research papers/presentations because they know I know my fields of study and they don't want to be embarassed.
If you notice people like Howe and others who have written negative comments about Afrocentrism are neither experts in history, linguistics or anthropology. They write this garbage because people will publish it to try and keep Blacks in their place.
I am sure when I am dead some people will attack my work. Like they do Diop's. Others will "re-discover" my decipherments and become the experts in languages I originally deciphered.
But who cares--truth will always out last a lie.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
The truth should be all thats needed, why use ideology that can sometimes be based on lies to boost self esteem? I don't thik many blacks have low self esteem.
Afrocentrisn is not an ideology it is a social science.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: [QB] Let's be perfectly clear about what I am saying out of my mouth (not what contortionist wish to twist my words to their own ends).
I am not ethnocentric -- I do not believe my ethny is the center of the world, the ethny to judge and measure every other ethny.
I am not black supremist -- I do not believe blacks (or any other colour groupings) are spiritually, intellectually, physically, culturally, or any other way superior.
I am not a black supremist either. I have published somewhere around 200+ articles in several languages . Name any of my publications where I have claimed that blacks (or any other colour groupings) are spiritually, intellectually , physically, culturally, or any other way superior.
Now answer these questions:
1. Do you believe the Egyptians were Black?
2. Have you written that the molecular evidence indicates that they were Black?
3. Are you African/Black, Colored or White?
If you believe Egyptians were Black and you are Black, you are ethnocentric.
Truth is better than centrism, since "centrism" implies that you are only centering around issues which supports your agenda and discarding the rest of the truth, like having a tunnel vision. At the end of the day this will only result with you lying to yourself
Please provide specific examples of this tunnel vision found in the works of Afrocentric researchers--and how they withheld the truth. Include a full citation of the work and explain how what was written was not based on the state-of-art research existing when a particular Afrocentric work was produced.
.
Well where should i start?
1)Olmec people being black because the statues showed broad features.
2) Elamites and Persians being black because the reliefs from that period have an artistic expression of what afrocentrist consider nappy hair, thus black.
3)Dravidians being black africans and descendant of kushites who migrated to india since they are dark skinned and don't speak a sanskrit language.
4) Mande speakers migrating to china and establishing the early chinese dynasties before being killed off by ancestors of modern chinese people.
5)Ancient japanese being black because of the commonality between Japanese names and african names and also of the broad faced statues.
6)Vikings and celts being black for reasons i don't remember.
etc etc. the list is endless.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Please provide a citation. This was a Dravidian dynasty. The first 'Chinese ' dynasty was Zhou. I have also acknowledged that the Dravidian Shang dynasty was conquered by the Anyang-Shang Dynasty which was founded by the Yin or Classical mongoloid.
Please show a citation where I said the Dravidian Shang were superior to the Chinese.
I have five web sites on the Blacks of China please cite one where I said the Shang were superior.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said the Vikings were Black I cited a source claiming they were.
I support by identification of a connection between the Olmecs based on skeletal remains, artifacts, writing and language. Please present evidence that this data does not exist.
I based the genetic relationship between Elamites, Japanese and Africans based on linguistic research.
You said this research is wrong. I have numerous articles on the relationship between archaic Chinese and the Mande languages, Japanese, Dravidian, Elamite and Niger Congo languages please demonstrate that my linguistic data is wrong.
Put up your evidence or shut up.
.
quote:Originally posted by Yonis:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Yonis
quote:
Truth is better than centrism, since "centrism" implies that you are only centering around issues which supports your agenda and discarding the rest of the truth, like having a tunnel vision. At the end of the day this will only result with you lying to yourself
Please provide specific examples of this tunnel vision found in the works of Afrocentric researchers--and how they withheld the truth. Include a full citation of the work and explain how what was written was not based on the state-of-art research existing when a particular Afrocentric work was produced.
.
Well where should i start?
1)Olmec people being black because the statues showed broad features.
2) Elamites and Persians being black because the reliefs from that period have an artistic expression of what afrocentrist consider nappy hair, thus black.
3)Dravidians being black africans and descendant of kushites who migrated to india since they are dark skinned and don't speak a sanskrit language.
4) Mande speakers migrating to china and establishing the early chinese dynasties before being killed off by ancestors of modern chinese people.
5)Ancient japanese being black because of the commonality between Japanese names and african names and also of the broad faced statues.
6)Vikings and celts being black for reasons i don't remember.
Please provide a citation. This was a Dravidian dynasty. The first 'Chinese ' dynasty was Zhou. I have also acknowledged that the Dravidian Shang dynasty was conquered by the Anyang-Shang Dynasty which was founded by the Yin or Classical mongoloid.
Please show a citation where I said the Dravidian Shang were superior to the Chinese.
I have five web sites on the Blacks of China please cite one where I said the Shang were superior.
.
To make your case stronger why don't you show us atleast two renowned researchers who support your theory of dravidians being the founders of shang dynasty and the zou dynasty was established by mande speakers. regardless if these researchers are black, white or chinese.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't mind Afrocentrism as long as they keep the truth in it and don't add lies and other people's history just to give blacks a confidence boost. I also notice that most of those pro blacks are married to white women. This is another reason I don't listen to a lot of those male afrocentrist when they start talking that black stuff.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
To make your case stronger why don't you show as atleast two renowned researchers who support your theory of dravidians being the founders of shang dynasty and the zou dynasty was established by mande speakers.
I have never said the Zhou were Mande speakers. The Zhou are just one group of Asians that have ruled much of China like the Hua. Hua , Zhou etc., are just the names of tribes that ruled northern China.
This comment is what I mean about the absence of self-esteem among many English speking Blacks. Let's look at what you are saying here.You are seeking the endorcement of whites for your history. Didn't you read Lamin's post, most Eurocentrics are not interested in highlighting the history of Blacks.What you are telling us is that if the white man don't support your work you must be wrong.
You have been so beaten down by white supremacy that you can't even think for yourself.
Why don't you present an established author that has proven by research is false, and cite the examples of counter evidence falsifying my claims.
Don't just post the comments of some internet junkie provide other evidence used to counter my linguistic, archaeological, anthropological and historical evidence.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every once in a while I am inclined to chime in and give my opinoin on the work of Dr. Winters. So I shall do so now. First of all throughout the history of archeological/anthropological research in the west it was mostly "outsiders" like Dr. Winters who made the greatest strides. Why? Because the "academy" develops dogma from which they make their livings, irrespective of the truth. They try to ignore the "outsiders" until word gets out to the educated public, who then demand change. If it was not for that "educated public" we would all be dealing the "hamites," "caucasion blacks" and other such nonsense that the "academy" wanted to hold on to forever. All racist lies, known to the academy to be false, but not acknowledged until an educated public starts to demand change. Dr. Winters work exists in this strange place in the development of knowledge. I have known him personally and studied Dr. Winters work for nearly 20 years. I am well aware of what his great strengths are as well as his weaknesses. He is right that "mainstream" academy people rarely come at him in pubic, because he will beat them down with his knowledge, especially his command of many languages. So they hang back and pick at his work like termites, trying to chip away from the foundation of his thesis, using common racist trickery and guile. The real truth is that Afrocentrism has saved the mental existences of many on this board, even those who say they don't believe in it. Because the mental enslavement, self-hate and lack of historical self-esteem instilled by the racist forces had us just that beat down. In this regard Dr. Winters and those he listed are heroes of the highest order. We should all be glad he is doing his work, including those who don't agree with him.
-------------------- Greg Walker/aka "Brother G" author of the Shades Of Memnon book series. www.africanlegendsonline.com Posts: 65 | From: Chicago | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Clyde Winters: Didn't you read Lamin's post, most Eurocentrics are not interested in highlighting the history of Blacks.What you are telling us is that if the white man don't support your work you must be wrong.
Actually i said "regardless if they are black, white or chinese."
I don't care what "race" they are as long as they are renowned, like someone in the league of S.O.Y keita.
Can you provide any who support the central thesis of your research, atleast one?
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
alTakruri, I don't agree with Dr. Winters calling you ethnocentric. I think it was unfair. But you should be very careful about insulting those he teaches. Dr. Wintes teaches students to be professional teachers and teaches teachers to be better teachers at Governor State University here in Illinois.
-------------------- Greg Walker/aka "Brother G" author of the Shades Of Memnon book series. www.africanlegendsonline.com Posts: 65 | From: Chicago | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
I didn't insult anybody. I thought I read in his CV that he was currently teaching the mentally challenged (and if so I highly commend him for taking on so vital and humanitarianly loving a task).
My intent was to reinforce the definition I gave for ethnocentrism by questioning comprehension reading skills of one who pretends that I didn't correctly define ethnocentrism and whose apparent aim is to force my agreement with his twisted appraisal.
Being a certain colour and knowing that a certain civilization was primarily composed of people of the same colour is NOT the working definition of ethnocentrism.
BTW -- though never setting foot in a same classroom as Dr. Winters, I consider him one of my prime teachers through his multitude of writings over the last 25 years since I first read (and vended) publications featuring his work.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glad to hear you did not mean it that way brother. I would like to know your reaction to what I wrote above: The real truth is that Afrocentrism has saved the mental existences of many on this board, even those who say they don't believe in it. Because the mental enslavement, self-hate and lack of historical self-esteem instilled by the racist forces had us just that beat down. In this regard Dr. Winters and those he listed are heroes of the highest order. We should all be glad he is doing his work, including those who don't agree with him.
-------------------- Greg Walker/aka "Brother G" author of the Shades Of Memnon book series. www.africanlegendsonline.com Posts: 65 | From: Chicago | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a strictly sociological cultural discipline Afrocentrism has some certain positive value.
As a historical adjunct its what crosses are to Count Dracula.
I haven't the foggiest notion of the background of many on this board and cannot possibly comment on the salvation of their mental existence.
Based on the flow of write-ins back in February by those holding I/T and other high end careers I'd wager there's no self-esteem issues at large.
I think Dr Winters needs to be more accepting of certain criticisms of his work rather than always denying the validity of opposing opinions. This doesn't mean he need back down just respectfully acknowledge "all the votes aren't in."
Yes, in the sense that "Black" is a 'subjective' connotation of "tropical African" background/base of 'indigenous' Nile Valley populations. This is the 'fact' of the matter, it is not an ideology.
quote: 2. Have you written that the molecular evidence indicates that they were Black?
Melanin dosage tests [as done by Diop] have indicated that indigenous Nile Valley figures exhibit substantial melanin levels, again, another term which can be subjectively called 'Black'. Ancient skeletal remains of lower Nile Valley populations have been determined to be structured in adaptation to tropical environment, in terms of limb proportions. The descendant groups of older/ancient Nile Valley populations still carry the genetic legacy of the older populations, simply because of biological 'inheritance' property of DNA. So, while DNA may be subjective to environmental or artificial contamination throughout the ages, DNA taken from living beings can shed light on the ancestral line from which they emanate. Genetic samplings done on living populations of the Nile Valley, indicate that they largely draw from a "tropical African" base, with varying degrees of external influence. If you know what "tropical Africa" is, it doesn't take much stretch of the imagination to figure out why it is easily associated with "black" Africans. Again, this is no ideology, but just the fact of the matter.
quote: 3. Are you African/Black, Colored or White?
Of course all those terms can be deemed subjective, for these words are European [specifically English] terms or else European "manipulated" terms from other languages. Not everybody speaks English as their primary language, or use European social constructs for that matter. However, to use those terms, I can subjectively say I'm a colored "African", or a "black African", in the sense that this denotes characteristics that underly my tropical African origins. Regardless of what I call these characteristics, they are a fact attested to by my 'tropical African' background. Again, just the fact of the matter.
quote: If you believe Egyptians were Black and you are Black, you are ethnocentric.
Nope, it doesn't make me 'ethnocentric', because these observations are based on the facts of the matter at hand. If the indigenous Nile Valley populations draw from a tropical African background as myself, regardless of the precise locations, is this then not the fact of the matter, or is it simply my being 'ethnocentric'? If they draw the bulk of their recent lineages from tropical Africa, is this not fact?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Please provide specific examples of this tunnel vision found in the works of Afrocentric researchers--and how they withheld the truth. Include a full citation of the work and explain how what was written was not based on the state-of-art research existing when a particular Afrocentric work was produced.
Well where should i start?
1)Olmec people being black because the statues showed broad features.
2) Elamites and Persians being black because the reliefs from that period have an artistic expression of what afrocentrist consider nappy hair, thus black.
3)Dravidians being black africans and descendant of kushites who migrated to india since they are dark skinned and don't speak a sanskrit language.
4) Mande speakers migrating to china and establishing the early chinese dynasties before being killed off by ancestors of modern chinese people.
5)Ancient japanese being black because of the commonality between Japanese names and african names and also of the broad faced statues.
6)Vikings and celts being black for reasons i don't remember.
etc etc. the list is endless.
You can add to the list, the Indian origins of "Meroitic Script", as opposed to its Nile Valley provenance.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do we really need the ideology called Afrocentrism? This is mainly directed at Clyde Winters, but general, whats the real use and purpose of Afrocentrism? Why not just focus on what the truth is? Genetic study after study, along with recent anthropological information is continually nailing the coffin shut on the ideology called "Eurocentrism". I think Afrocentrism isn't needed and never was. Comments?
posted
Unfortunately, we largely live in ideologically driven world, despite being aware of objective facts/truth.
quote:...by the way Clyde Winters views would be considered racist or subramacist if they were held by an European...who is worse Evil Euro or Winters?
You are comparing apples with oranges. Winters is quite learned and disciplined, notwithstanding some of his questionable positions, as opposed to the troll you speak of. Let's not take things that far.
-------------------- Truth - a liar penetrating device! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Supercar, I don't agree with Dr. Winters about everything, but I can speak to three of the items you questioned:
1)Olmec people being black because the statues showed broad features.
A. According the Mayan book "The Popul Vuh", there were black people in Mexico in the most ancient of times. Popul Vuh chapter 3:
"There they were then, in great number, the black men and the white men, men of many classes, men of many tongues, that it was wonderful to hear them."
There have been literally hundreds of small statues of African people found at pre-Olmec and Olmec sites, clearly showing nappy African hair, scarification, and yes broad features. Look in Alexander Von Wuthenua's "Unexpected Faces In Ancient America" for photos. And there were almost identical cultual traits and ceremonies among the Olmecs and the Mande mentioned in R. A. Jairazbhoy's "Ancient Egyptians and Chinese in America" [Volume 1] and in the work of a few other brave researchers mentioned by Dr. Winters.
2) Elamites and Persians being black because the reliefs from that period have an artistic expression of what afrocentrist consider nappy hair, thus black. A. Dr. Winters never said Persian were Blacks. But the Elamites surely were. They were mentioned to be blacks by a many ancient writers and there is iconic evidence, mentioned by the author Micheal Rice in "Egypt's Making," that indicate that they were in Africa at some point. I believe that they were Proto-Saharans, like Dr. Winters says. Also, Elam was noted as one of the domains of Memnon, the legendary Ethiopian prince, by Greek writers like Herodotus.
3)Dravidians being black africans and descendant of kushites who migrated to india since they are dark skinned and don't speak a sanskrit language. A. The similarities in culture, looks and religious practices by some Dravidians, particularly the Tamil speakers, make if hard to deny some deep connection to similar people in the African archeological/anthropological record. So much so that representatives of the Dravidian scholarly community invited Dr. Winters to contribute key chapters to the "Dravidian Encyclopedia" about their ties to the African Kushites. I have a copy of this document, and others, which agree with Dr. Winters about this connection. If the Dravidian scholars themselves are in general consensus about this, who are we to say no to it?
I want to say one thing too about genetics: Just because some black folk don't have genes that match other black folk in Africa does not mean that they were not settled in Africa at some point. If the Sahara desert was the paradise the geologists say it was, why could't some Dravidians and or Elamites move in and become Africans similar to the way the Boers other and South African Whites have done? I never see this possiblity, which I think is strong, addressed. After all, the African Aqualithic Sahara lasted for thousands of years. Why could this have not happened? If the Nunga people(Asutrialian Aborigines) could leave South Asia and sail to Austrialia (between 40-70,0000 BC!) as the science now proves they did, then all sorts of folks could have heard about and moved into, the beautiful wet Sahara.
As for these other things mentioned, Dr. Winters thesis states that Africans went among these scattered populations, often playng key roles in certian areas. That does not negate the greatness of the indigenous population's efforts in civilization. Just as they could build great thing on their own, we(Africans) could get in boats and sail around the world to meet and settle among them.
Finally, Africentrism, which does need work, does not generally seek to prove Black Supremacy, unlike Eurocentrism, which does. I myself am an Africentric writer of historical fiction books called "Shades Of Memnon"
Proving African to be better than others is not my goal. I seek only real international black history that does not require the approval of the white academy.
-------------------- Greg Walker/aka "Brother G" author of the Shades Of Memnon book series. www.africanlegendsonline.com Posts: 65 | From: Chicago | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please make sure this is addressed from the above essay:
I want to say one thing too about genetics: Just because some black folk don't have genes that match other black folk in Africa does not mean that they were not settled in Africa at some point. If the Sahara desert was the paradise the geologists say it was, why could't some Dravidians and or Elamites move in and become Africans similar to the way the Boers other and South African Whites have done? I never see this possiblity, which I think is strong, addressed. After all, the African Aqualithic Sahara lasted for thousands of years. Why could this have not happened? If the Nunga people(Austrialian Aborigines) could leave South Asia and sail to Austrialia (between 40-70,0000 BC!) as the science now proves they did, then all sorts of folks could have heard about and moved into, the beautiful wet Sahara.
-------------------- Greg Walker/aka "Brother G" author of the Shades Of Memnon book series. www.africanlegendsonline.com Posts: 65 | From: Chicago | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, afrocentrism is NOT needed. Truth will validate Blacks. This board alone with its links to primary legitimate peer reviewed mainstream sources in genetics and history builds REAL armor.
"Afrocentrism", if I understand correctly, exaggerates or makes completely false claims with regard to "black" history. This does nothing but convolute truth by spreading misinformation. When lies are defeated in academics, it causes MORE damage to blacks because they will conclude that everything they were told to believe about themselves was a sham. Sticking to TRUTH sets everybody free. This is something both "blacks" and the overwhelming Eurocentric community can learn from.
Spreading lies only makes it harder to find the truth and as I said, opens one to disaster when the truth is finally unearthed. Stick to facts and science as much as possible.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keeping in mind what I just said, that nothing was standing in the way of Blacks living in Asia coming to live in the wet Sahara, read the essay from Dr. Winters below and tell why it must be impossible:
Supercar, I don't agree with Dr. Winters about everything, but I can speak to three of the items you questioned:
Actually, you are reading Yonis' list; nonetheless, you said:
1)Olmec people being black because the statues showed broad features.
A. According the Mayan book "The Popul Vuh", there were black people in Mexico in the most ancient of times. Popul Vuh chapter 3:
"There they were then, in great number, the black men and the white men, men of many classes, men of many tongues, that it was wonderful to hear them."
There have been literally hundreds of small statues of African people found at pre-Olmec and Olmec sites, clearly showing nappy African hair, scarification, and yes broad features. Look in Alexander Von Wuthenua's "Unexpected Faces In Ancient America" for photos. And there were almost identical cultual traits and ceremonies among the Olmecs and the Mande mentioned in R. A. Jairazbhoy's "Ancient Egyptians and Chinese in America" [Volume 1] and in the work of a few other brave researchers mentioned by Dr. Winters.
Well, I don't have an issue with the idea of Olmecs being "black" or of tropical environment extraction. I do however question that they are genetically close to tropical Africans, or that they directly draw from tropical west Africa, as in Mande speakers. Did the Olmecs speak "Mande", and did they write a "Mande" script? If so, what are the relevant strong evidences that you've learnt from the said authors?
quote: 2) Elamites and Persians being black because the reliefs from that period have an artistic expression of what afrocentrist consider nappy hair, thus black.
quote: But the Elamites surely were. They were mentioned to be blacks by a many ancient writers and there is iconic evidence, mentioned by the author Micheal Rice in "Egypt's Making," that indicate that they were in Africa at some point. I believe that they were Proto-Saharans, like Dr. Winters says. Also, Elam was noted as one of the domains of Memnon, the legendary Ethiopian prince, by Greek writers like Herodotus.
Well, the Elamites may have been 'black', but does this mean that they were "Africans" or 'genetically close' to Africans? Short of genetic examination, this point would be conjecture. Their language is extinct, even though some have proclaimed to have figured out its language family association. The Elamites were not one and same as the "Sumerian" groups who proceeded them in the region.
quote: 3)Dravidians being black africans and descendant of kushites who migrated to india since they are dark skinned and don't speak a sanskrit language.
A. The similarities in culture, looks and religious practices by some Dravidians, particularly the Tamil speakers, make if hard to deny some deep connection to similar people in the African archeological/anthropological record.
No African groups speak Dravidian language or vice versa. What is culturally similar between Dravidians and Africans, that you can only attribute to cultural demic diffusion? Dravidians carry Paleo-Eurasian lineages which aren't found in the Saharan region or Northeast Africa. The small frequencies found in Africa, were noted in Tanzanian samples in one study, but these appear to be derivatives found in south Asian, where the older M lineages appear. Saharo-tropical Africans have paternal and maternal lineage transitions that post-date the earliest Paleo-Out-of-Africa migrations which gave rise to modern non-African groups. Dravidians would have the same lineages as Saharo-tropical Africans, if they weren't descendant groups from the said Paleo-Out-of-Africa migrations; they would either share the same paternal and maternal Pre-Paleo-Out-of-Africa lineages, or the post-Paleo-Out-of-Africa lineages, as opposed to those lineages that directly branch from the said Paleo-migrants who gave rise to modern non-Africans, including Eurasians.
quote: So much so that representatives of the Dravidian scholarly community invited Dr. Winters to contribute key chapters to the "Dravidian Encyclopedia" about their ties to the African Kushites. I have a copy of this document, and others, which agree with Dr. Winters about this connection. If the Dravidian scholars themselves are in general consensus about this, who are we to say no to it?
Well, ideological motives may well have something to this, as to which as you may have noticed from my prior post, I acknowledge that we largely live in a world driven by such subjective social issues, but as far as objective analysis is concerned, the outstanding questions remain to be answered, with the burden of proof being on advocates like Clyde Winters.
quote:I want to say one thing too about genetics: Just because some black folk don't have genes that match other black folk in Africa does not mean that they were not settled in Africa at some point.
The point is 'timing', not 'ultimate' origins. If Winters says that Dravidians came from Africa at so and so time, this must be reconciled with known genetic findings on the bio-historic and demographic events that shaped and continue to shape geographical regions around the globe, on top of findings from other disciplines.
quote:If the Sahara desert was the paradise the geologists say it was, why could't some Dravidians and or Elamites move in and become Africans similar to the way the Boers other and South African Whites have done?
Because of the reasons stated above, and "whites" arrived at time when systems of record keeping and writing had been well-established virtually all across the globe. Their genome reflects the historic accounts made about their very late arrival into the region, and how they are not indigenous in the same sense as Dravidians or South Africans are to their respective regions. The "Boers" are recent settler migrants in Southern Africa. The Black South Africans and Dravidians are natives of, or indigenous to the regions they inhabit. There is a difference.
quote: I never see this possiblity, which I think is strong, addressed. After all, the African Aqualithic Sahara lasted for thousands of years. Why could this have not happened? If the Nunga people(Asutrialian Aborigines) could leave South Asia and sail to Austrialia (between 40-70,0000 BC!) as the science now proves they did, then all sorts of folks could have heard about and moved into, the beautiful wet Sahara.
Do you consider Australian Aborigines 'black Africans"? If not, why? If yes, please explain.
quote:As for these other things mentioned, Dr. Winters thesis states that Africans went among these scattered populations, often playng key roles in certian areas. That does not negate the greatness of the indigenous population's efforts in civilization. Just as they could build great thing on their own, we(Africans) could get in boats and sail around the world to meet and settle among them.
Finally, Africentrism, which does need work, does not generally seek to prove Black Supremacy, unlike Eurocentrism, which does. I myself am an Africentric writer of historical fiction books called "Shades Of Memnon"
Proving African to be better than others is not my goal. I seek only real international black history that does not require the approval of the white academy.
Backing claims with strong and unquestionable objective premise doesn't require the approval of any ideological entity other than truth seekers. Afrocentrism may not seek to propagate Black Supremacy, but some of their reactions in response to Eurocentric distortions, lead some advocates within this ideological entity to make extraordinary proclaimations, which are undoubtedly questionable. As a result, some end up doing [wittingly or not] what they accuse their Eurocentric counterparts of.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is where I flat out reveal my take on things: Australian Aborigines are Blacks who evolved in Asia, not Africa. I believe this about Elamites, Sumerians, Dravidians and some Pacific Island blacks too. But I think there is enough proof to show that some of these folks came into Africa, settled the Sahara Desert and contributied to the Proto-Saharan Culture that Dr. Winters speaks of. It looks to me like they evolved in Asia, just as the genetict information says, then moved next door to Afro-Asiatic speakers in what is now a desert, thus backing Dr. Winter's linguistics and other cultureal similarities like the red and black pottery. After it dried up, they moved back to Asia. The Greeks were close enough in time to know of this, possibly hearing the African/Asian Kushites themselves speaking of it, and thus called them all "Ethiopians!" I ask again to all the genetic experts: Show me that this was not possible!
-------------------- Greg Walker/aka "Brother G" author of the Shades Of Memnon book series. www.africanlegendsonline.com Posts: 65 | From: Chicago | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Africa: but it's sad that science has to be spoiled by these stupid ideologies...
Better put: It's sad that TRUTHFUL facts are spoiled and ridiculed because of things as stupid as LABLES like FREAKING 'POLITICALLY CORRECT' and 'AFROCENTRIC'! :ANGRY:
quote:Originally posted by Africa:
quote:Winters is quite learned and disciplined, notwithstanding some of his questionable positions, as opposed to the troll you speak of.
I've been thinking of this as well. I'm interested in people/ and humity too and euro-centered information has been shoved down my throat my whole life also, which is why, therefore, my searchings now tend to be centered towards Africa now. I'm fascinated with each are of Africa equally, especially West.
Takruri made good points and I get what he was trying to say, but in the way I just described my-self, afrocentric is logical.
posted
To make it clear: I disagree with Dr. Winters and think that the Sumerians, Dravidians and Elamites evolved in Asia, not Africa. But they still were a part of the Proto-Saharan Culture by doing what human beings do: moving to a new and better place. The paradise-like African Aqualithic Sahara!
-------------------- Greg Walker/aka "Brother G" author of the Shades Of Memnon book series. www.africanlegendsonline.com Posts: 65 | From: Chicago | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
This is where I flat out reveal my take on things: Australian Aborigines are Blacks who evolved in Asia, not Africa. I believe this about Elamites, Sumerians, Dravidians and some Pacific Island blacks too. But I think there is enough proof to show that some of these folks came into Africa, settled the Sahara Desert and contributied to the Proto-Saharan Culture that Dr. Winters speaks of. It looks to me like they evolved in Asia, just as the genetict information says, then moved next door to Afro-Asiatic speakers in what is now a desert, thus backing Dr. Winter's linguistics and other cultureal similarities like the red and black pottery. After it dried up, they moved back to Asia. The Greeks were close enough in time to know of this, possibly hearing the African/Asian Kushites themselves speaking of it, and thus called them all "Ethiopians!" I ask again to all the genetic experts: Show me that this was not possible!
From a genetic standpoint, lack of correspondence from genetic data!
Ps - Surely, you don't hypothesize that "Black Asians" as those mentioned in your piece, moved into the fertile Saharan environment to live side by side with Africans, without some miscegenation between them...like some sort of "live in the same space kind 'a thing, but social apartheid". I mean, even the Boers who tried to do such a thing, as did the "Whites" in America, couldn't prevent the natural occurrence of miscegenation between co-habiting populations. As such, surely there would be some genetic indicators to that extent, however little it may be.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Are you as retarded as the mentally challenged students you teach?
Granted I have taught students with learning disabilities, but never retarded students.
I don't understand what you're talking about. I teach graduate and undergraduate students.
I have guided 25 Master thesis and 3 Dissertations. Later this year one of my students will get his PhD in African history. His dissertation concerns which civilization was first Egypt or Mesopotamia.
As a result, I do not appreciate you describing my students as retarded.
posted
Hey Dr. Winters, I tried to set the brother straight about who you teach. I hope you don't take offense to me disagreeing with you on the origin of the Sumerians, Dravidians and Elamites. I really do think they evolved in Asia and came later to settle the Sahara. Supercar please explain this: From a genetic standpoint, lack of correspondence from genetic data!
What genetics can you cite that proves that a population of Elamites, Dravidians or Sumerians never settled in Africa? How can genes say this for sure? They have excavated not .001% of the Sahara Desert. There could be whole cultures under that sand.
-------------------- Greg Walker/aka "Brother G" author of the Shades Of Memnon book series. www.africanlegendsonline.com Posts: 65 | From: Chicago | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BroG: Keeping in mind what I just said, that nothing was standing in the way of Blacks living in Asia coming to live in the wet Sahara,
the question: denoted by what lineage?
the answer: silence, ignore the question, wait, wait.... then repeat ridiculous claims.
same thing evil euro used to do when pressed to produce his 'pre-historic whites' of east africa.
so called afrocentrism only hurts itself by reducing itself to and utterly bogus form of pseudoscientific discourse.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Hey Dr. Winters, I tried to set the brother straight about who you teach. I hope you don't take offense to me disagreeing with you on the origin of the Sumerians, Dravidians and Elamites. I really do think they evolved in Asia and came later to settle the Sahara. Supercar please explain this: From a genetic standpoint, lack of correspondence from genetic data!
What genetics can you cite that proves that a population of Elamites, Dravidians or Sumerians never settled in Africa? How can genes say this for sure? They have excavated not .001% of the Sahara Desert. There could be whole cultures under that sand.
You have a right to your opinion, but as I have written I believe they originated in the Sahara and later migrated to Asia.
Supercar is right, I did say the original Persians were Black. I discuss the archaeological, linguistic and skeletal evidence supporting this fact in my book: Afrocentrism: Myth or Science. You can order the book at the following site:
I will not discuss the molecular evidence here for an African origin of the Dravidians and Elamites.
But in the future in peer reviewed journals I will discuss this data in detail among scientist who really understand genetics. Once these papers are published I will post them here for your perusal and enlightenment.
quote:Originally posted by BroG: Hey Dr. Winters, I tried to set the brother straight about who you teach. I hope you don't take offense to me disagreeing with you on the origin of the Sumerians, Dravidians and Elamites.
I really do think they evolved in Asia and came later to settle the Sahara.
Why should he take offense, your claim is no more absurd than his, and neither one of you have managed to address the genetic evidence that refutes you.
quote: Supercar please explain this: From a genetic standpoint, lack of correspondence from genetic data!
What genetics can you cite that proves that a population of Elamites, Dravidians or Sumerians never settled in Africa?
Typical burden of proof fallacy, and ad neuseum fallacy as we go over this again and again, and neither you nor your mentor ever produce anything substantial by way of refutation of the genetic evidence.
Here again is your answer, for you to ignore, but never to refute.....
The lineages of native Asiatic Dravidians are not found in Africa.
The lineages of Africans are not found among Dravidians.
Case closed.
quote:They have excavated not .001% of the Sahara Desert. There could be whole cultures under that sand.
^ Logical fallacy in which excuses for lack of evidence is meant to substitute for 'missing evidence'. Abscense of evidence....is proof of nothing.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
and 'AFROCENTRIC'! :ANGRY: ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic