Everybody in the world was originally black before adaptation made them white, Mongoloid, etc
The good:
Africa when viewed through a correct and objective lens, made a huge impact in the world with a continuity that spans back to the first humans.
Posts: 285 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^I fully agree with you. Making these stupid claims doesnt really serve any cause. Atleast not the "black" cause.
Posts: 280 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the guys that make claims about China, Olmecs, India and Mesopotamia are really a bunch of distorters. Its nothing wrong with studying those areas as world cultures, but taking to the extreme[Clyde Winters and Rakundo Rashidi and Dr Ben] gives Afrocentrism a bad name.
posted
To me afrocentrism can be good if used in the right way. Not used for claiming civilizations just to claim them.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness: The bad:
Indus Valley civilization was black
Mesopotamian civilization was black
Dalits are black
It depends on what you mean by 'black'. We know that there were black peoples who originally lived in these regions, but to claim these were recent African populations is another issue that is just as distortive as Western claims of 'caucasoid' civilization in these regions.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's amazing how the ethical standards for Afrocentrism is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay higher than the ethical standards for Eurocentrism.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BigMix: It's amazing how the ethical standards for Afrocentrism is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay higher than the ethical standards for Eurocentrism.
Europeans have proven their ability to advance civilization. It is for those that have faltered to prove that they can re"claim" their former glory.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Arbitrarily listing these things as incorrect, maybe because you dont agree is BAD as well. I mean BAD because you didn't post any evidence either for or against their accuracy.
Therefore, you are spreading more disinformation than information.
FACTS:
1) The first Chinese were black: Well, most of the aboriginal people in Southeast Asia were indeed black, as seen in the temples of Angkor Wat. In fact, if you believe the out of Africa theory, then man moved out of Africa into the rest of the world, including China. There is a sizable population of aboriginal blacks in Cabodia, Thailand, Taiwan, Laos, Burma New Guinea, Vietnam, the Phillippines and so on. Many of these aboriginal tribes are now definitely in the minority and definitely oppressed in many cases.
In fact, not too many years ago, anthropologists actually claimed to have to "discovered" a tribe that was totally ignorant of the outside world around them. These guys looked no different than Africans in Africa.
Now, I dont know when homo-sapiens got to China, but it is possible that the aboriginal(meaning first) homo-sapiens there may have been dark brown skinned. As a matter of fact, there are eskimos all over Northern Asia and America who are quite dark even though they are distinctly more asian in character. Many of the ancient mongol hordes would have been this way as well.
2. The indus valley complex is in a part of India that has a sizeable black population, meaning people with medium to dark brown skin. India itself is a predominantly black population even now. For anyone to deny this is incredible. Most of the ancient indian monuments portray people of distinctly negroid features, very similar to those depicted in many places in asia, like Angkor Wat in Cambodia.The reason so many want to point out the achievements of the native aboriginal population in India, is precisely because of the whole history of Aryanism in Indian history and the res
3.) Olmec civilization was black.
The olmec heads in South America are some of the most negroid statues anywhere on the planet. That is part of the reason they are so famous, since this phenotype was quite unexpected in South America.
4. Dalits are Indian, the majority of Indians are dark brown skinned. Dalits are no exception. As a matter of fact, some feel they are untouchables precisely because of that fact.
5. Rome was a mixed race civilization.
Actually it was a mixed race civilization. At the height of the Roman Empire, it included many conquered races and people from Europe to Africa, many of whom eventually made it into the upper realms of Roman society.
6. Which Cleopatra? There were many, and I am sure at least one had some amount of native Egyptian blood. Nevertheless, I do agree that in general Cleopatra is best regarded as Greek.
7. Everybody in the world was originally black before adaptation made them white, Mongoloid, etc
Unless these types were present when homo sapiens exited Africa, then yes indeed this would be true. Darwin is the one you seem to have a beef with.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Europeans have proven their ability to advance civilization. It is for those that have faltered to prove that they can re"claim" their former glory. [/QB]
so double standards are good.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is not a question of standards, its a question of proven ability. The biggest problem people have with seeing a so called "Black Egypt" is the current state of the actual descendents of Ancient Egypt not to even mention the rest of Africa.
If the current state improved significantly in terms of advancement and influence at a global level then the claim to glory will naturally follow but become unnecessary.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: It is not a question of standards, its a question of proven ability. The biggest problem people have with seeing a so called "Black Egypt" is the current state of the actual descendents of Ancient Egypt not to even mention the rest of Africa.
If the current state improved significantly in terms of advancement and influence at a global level then the claim to glory will naturally follow but become unnecessary.
I would go further and say that many have used the state of Africa and Africans today as somehow an indication of their relative inferiority. This whole idea is based upon the old racist anthropological argument that blacks were the primitive ancestors of mankind, who really didn't accomplish much in the way of civilization. Civilization was brought about by later more advanced humans, ie. Europeans (Aryans), who had the responsibility of spreading progress throughout the world. Therefore, if many hundreds of thousands, if not many "natives" were caused pain and suffering in the name of progress, then it was ok, since god wante man to make "progress", and of course Europeans(Aryans) were the ones chosen to make this progress happen. Against this backdrop of racist ideology, any evidence of advanced ancient societies in parts of the world with known populations of "negroid" peoples was attributed to the presence of Eurasians(Aryans).
Using the fact that Africa today as an example somehow of how correct the historically racist ideas of antropology are is total B.S. First, it denies and minimizes the suffering and pain brought on the Africans by Europeans, Asians and others in the name of material progress. The state of Africa today has more to do with the historically racist policies of European powers towards Africa, than evidence of Africans being innately inferior in any way.
The standard, therefore, is to admit the true history with regards to Europeans and how they have historically viewed the world and themselves in it. Any standard that glosses over the fact that European power was gained through oppression and genocide are only claims of self delusion, intended to make Europeans feel good about themselves. In that light, it makes sense to have this constant effort "re-claim" ancient culture, since many want to rewrite the history of European conquest in the light of a false utopian ideal of Europeans being the god-ordained saviors of the world for the uncivilized savages who populated it. Of course the existence of places like Egypt, Angkor Wat, Harrappa and the Olmecs would have to be "dealt" with in some way, in order to maintain the hypocrisy of the European version of history.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
1) The first Chinese were black: Well, most of the aboriginal people in Southeast Asia were indeed black, as seen in the temples of Angkor Wat. In fact, if you believe the out of Africa theory, then man moved out of Africa into the rest of the world, including China. There is a sizable population of aboriginal blacks in Cabodia, Thailand, Taiwan, Laos, Burma New Guinea, Vietnam, the Phillippines and so on. Many of these aboriginal tribes are now definitely in the minority and definitely oppressed in many cases.
In fact, not too many years ago, anthropologists actually claimed to have to "discovered" a tribe that was totally ignorant of the outside world around them. These guys looked no different than Africans in Africa.
Of course all Eurasians were originally black but we are talking about civilizations. Chinese were not black but they did have references to rare groups in deep Southeast Asia who they called 'black heads'. The civilization of Angkor was not black but was created by the ancestors of the Khmer (Cambodians) perhaps the only civilization with any connections to Negritos is Funan, whose earliest references from China spoke of a dark-skinned queen with wooly hair. Although such a description was only rumor there was still the possibility. But it is ridiculous to attribute the features of Angkor statuary to 'black' features since many "mongoloid" peoples in Southeast Asia today have those same features!
quote:Now, I dont know when homo-sapiens got to China, but it is possible that the aboriginal(meaning first) homo-sapiens there may have been dark brown skinned. As a matter of fact, there are eskimos all over Northern Asia and America who are quite dark even though they are distinctly more asian in character. Many of the ancient mongol hordes would have been this way as well.
Actually, the only reason why Inuit (Eskimos) and other Siberians who live along the coasts are dark is because of their consumption of vitamin-D rich fish. According to anthropologists like Jablonsky et al, light-skin evolved as a response to less vitamin-D from less sunlight in populations farther north. Those that consumed fish rich in vitamin-D seem to be the only exception.
quote:2. The indus valley complex is in a part of India that has a sizeable black population, meaning people with medium to dark brown skin. India itself is a predominantly black population even now. For anyone to deny this is incredible. Most of the ancient indian monuments portray people of distinctly negroid features, very similar to those depicted in many places in asia, like Angkor Wat in Cambodia.The reason so many want to point out the achievements of the native aboriginal population in India, is precisely because of the whole history of Aryanism in Indian history and the rest
The part about India is true, but again not about Angkor.
quote:3.) Olmec civilization was black.
The olmec heads in South America are some of the most negroid statues anywhere on the planet. That is part of the reason they are so famous, since this phenotype was quite unexpected in South America.
Again, there are rural peoples in Meso-America that have the exact same features as the Olmec statues yet they are all Native Americans and NOT black. One may argue about the presence of black aboriginals who were the first true modern humans to reach America but that was tens of millenia ago before there was an Olmec civilization. Besides, new findings show that the oldest civilizations in the Americas began in South America and were predecessors of the Inca.
Seriously, to attribute these cultures to blacks on account of similarity in features would be doing the SAME exact thing that Eurocentrists have been doing for centuries when they claimed a civilization was "caucasoid" because the depictions had such features as narrow noses.
quote:4. Dalits are Indian, the majority of Indians are dark brown skinned. Dalits are no exception. As a matter of fact, some feel they are untouchables precisely because of that fact.
The majority of Indians are dark indeed but whether you could call all of them 'black' is another issue. Despite what you may think, not all Dalits are even dark!
quote:5. Rome was a mixed race civilization.
Depends on what you mean by "mixed-race". Just as the Indo-European Hellas (Greeks) had predecessors, so too did the Latins (ancestors of the Romans). These predecessors of the Romans were the Etruscans and others indigenous to the Italian peninsula. Roman civilization is a descendant of Etruscan in much the same way that 'Classical' Greece was the descendant of the Helladic before it.
quote:Actually it was a mixed race civilization. At the height of the Roman Empire, it included many conquered races and people from Europe to Africa, many of whom eventually made it into the upper realms of Roman society.
Again, it depends what you mean. The actual Empire that Romans ruled over was metropolitan and consisted of peoples from all over, yet the actual civilization itself originated in Europe or Italy to be exact.
quote:6. Which Cleopatra? There were many, and I am sure at least one had some amount of native Egyptian blood. Nevertheless, I do agree that in general Cleopatra is best regarded as Greek.
You are right that there were many Cleopatras, however the Greek/Macedonian elite never allowed 'foreign blood'into their families so the chances that any Cleopatra had native Egyptian blood was nil! The only one who broke such a taboo was Alexander the Great himself when he chose to have heirs through foreign wives.
quote:7. Everybody in the world was originally black before adaptation made them white, Mongoloid, etc
Unless these types were present when homo sapiens exited Africa, then yes indeed this would be true. Darwin is the one you seem to have a beef with.
Darwin had nothing to do with the Out-of-African origin theory of mankind which was postulated centuries after his death. It's true that all humans in the world were originally black, but what does that have to do with the development of the civilizations you mentioned earlier??
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Africa when viewed through a correct and objective lens, made a huge impact in the world with a continuity that spans back to the first humans.
Let's go with that thought
Ok who were the first Humans in recorded history?
Answer: The Africans
Now if the first humans were Africans and created the world first civilization common sense will tell us that maybe the original people in African migrated to other places in the world.
Did the Africans develop the ability to make boats?
Answer: Yes
Did the Africans sail to different parts of the world?
Of course all Eurasians were originally black but we are talking about civilizations. Chinese were not black
Thought Writes:
Are you suggesting that there were no Melanesean types found in Shang graves?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QUOTE]
Again, there are rural peoples in Meso-America that have the exact same features as the Olmec statues yet they are all Native Americans and NOT black. One may argue about the presence of black aboriginals who were the first true modern humans to reach America but that was tens of millenia ago before there was an Olmec civilization.
Thought Writes:
Actually the early Olmec burials contained some Melanesean types as well.
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
The Phoencians were Black According to the bible Qu'ran and Torah.
Thought Writes:
The non-sense continues on this forum.
That part isn't so much non-sense until you add the second part to it.
"This is why some believe Cleopatra was Black."
Maybe he was thinking of Hannibal who was a Cartheginian general (Carthage was a Phonecian colony).
Cleopatra VII was an Egyptian Queen of the Ptolmaic dynasty and of Macedonian lineage. Is it possible that the Ptolomies mixed blood with the Native Egyptians who at the time were still predominately Black African? Yes.
But is it likely? No.
As Djehuti pointed out the Hellenic elite were very xenophobic, they did not approve royal intermarriage with foreigners all of whom were considered to be Barbarians (people who were not Native Greeks) and this trend continued after the age of Alexander the Great, who's views of cultural assimilation were very liberal for the time period.
Peasants could intermarry and the elite had concubines and possibly children with them but it was rare for elite Greeks to name such children as successors. Alexander's mother herself was rumored to be a barbarian though.
This is a surviving bust of Cleopatra.
It is said that she was more intelligent than she was beautiful and perhaps won over Antony and Julius Ceasar with her charmn rather than her looks. Though perhaps this was considered to be aesthetically beautiful in that time period.
In my opinion someone who looks like Cleopatra cannot compare to the beauty of a lovely lady like Ashanti who has the face of a Goddess, Masonic Rebel.
I also don't think Ashanti is a good example of a mixed race person if that is what you were insinuating. I saw her parents on her driven special they were both Black. In WN circles I've actually been in debates with racists who insisted that Black women were only beautiful if they had a significant amount of non-African blood. I started spamming pictures for entertainment and one guy insisted that all my pictures were of women who were biracial even NATIVE WEST AFRICANS!
The guy was a crack pot.
These two women look equal in beauty to me.
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansa Musa: That part isn't so much non-sense until you add the second part to it.
Thought Writes:
Good points Mansa. What I was calling non-sense is the idea that one would use mythology as primary evidence pertaining to a question of biological science. Certainly the mythology of the Bible, Quran and Torah can be used as supporting evidence. But the bar is much higher for primary evidence.
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansa Musa: That part isn't so much non-sense until you add the second part to it.
Thought Writes:
Good points Mansa. What I was calling non-sense is the idea that one would use mythology as primary evidence pertaining to a question of biological science. Certainly the mythology of the Bible, Quran and Torah can be used as supporting evidence. But the bar is much higher for primary evidence.
I agree. Richard Poe gives credence to the idea that the Phonecians were mixed race by proposing the question of why the ancient myths counted them as a Son of Ham (Ancient Phonecia is believed to be Modern Lebanon and Canaan a Son of Ham is a region that extended from Modern Israel through Lebanon to Syria).
He cites the fact that in the tomb of Ramses III Levantine people or Syro-Palestinians a group which would include the Phonecians are depicted in 2 shades of tan skin.
He proposes that this may be evidence of intermixture and that perhaps the Phonecians were indeed Black like the other descendants of Ham but intermixed at an early date with light skinned Asiatics.
An interesting theory but a theory based on myth and eyeballing nonetheless.
Can you tell us anything about the biological history of this region Thought? In particular I am interested in the genetic makeup of the Lebanese. Some actually consider a portion of the population to be socially acceptable as Whites based on appearance.
Also watch out for a PM I have some more questions on a similar subject now that I think about it.
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Phoencians were Black According to the bible Qu'ran and Torah.
Thought Writes:
The non-sense continues on this forum.
As a norm, I take the "wait & see" approach before I judge a personality, but there is a need to be watchful of individuals who pretend to agree with facts presented here on a daily basis, pertaining to the realities of the Nile Valley and other Africans, and then spew out pseudo-scholarship in the name of solidarity with the truth seekers, all the while being a "spy" [as someone put it earlier] or "instigator" harboring an ideological agenda contrary to the aforementioned FACTS. The idea here of course, is to hope that truth seekers turn a blind eye or not speak out against such pseudo-scholarship garbage, or else, trick the innocent but less informed ones into accepting the gibberish, so as to discredit them all by giving the impression that all concur with the garbage spewed [by the spy/instigator]. This is how people of various backgrounds are lumped into an "ideological" entity [e.g. the targeting of "Afrocentrism"] and "collectively" discredited by what some amateur might have said here or there. This is the tactic that Lefkowitz supposedly used to argue against her opponents...picking up what some amateur might have said [about Cleopatra being "black"] somewhere, and using that as a premises to discredit her lettered opponents.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I stand corrected on the Ashanti issue apparently her father is 1/2 black, 1/2 Chinese and mother 3/4 Dominican, 1/4 black... atleast according to Wikipedia.
Considering many Dominicans are Black that is hardly an argument for her being "biracial".
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Of course all Eurasians were originally black but we are talking about civilizations. Chinese were not black
Thought Writes:
Are you suggesting that there were no Melanesean types found in Shang graves?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QUOTE]
Again, there are rural peoples in Meso-America that have the exact same features as the Olmec statues yet they are all Native Americans and NOT black. One may argue about the presence of black aboriginals who were the first true modern humans to reach America but that was tens of millenia ago before there was an Olmec civilization.
Thought Writes:
Actually the early Olmec burials contained some Melanesean types as well.
Thought Writes:
This is a bit off topic, but adds value given the comments above.
Thought Posts:
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2005 Jun;127(2):182-209. Related Articles, Links
Dental perspectives on the population history of Southeast Asia.
Matsumura H, Hudson MJ.
Department of Anatomy, Sapporo Medical University, Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-8556, Japan. hiromura@sapmed.ac.jp
This article uses metric and nonmetric dental data to test the "two-layer" or immigration hypothesis whereby Southeast Asia was initially occupied by an "Australo-Melanesian" population that later underwent substantial genetic admixture with East Asian immigrants associated with the spread of agriculture from the Neolithic period onwards. We examined teeth from 4,002 individuals comprising 42 prehistoric and historic samples from East Asia, Southeast Asia, Australia, and Melanesia. For the odontometric analysis, dental size proportions were compared using factor analysis and Q-mode correlation coefficients, and overall tooth size was also compared between population samples. Nonmetric population affinities were estimated by Smith's distances, using the frequencies of 16 tooth traits. The results of both the metric and nonmetric analyses demonstrate close affinities between recent Australo-Melanesian samples and samples representing early Southeast Asia, such as the Early to Middle Holocene series from Vietnam, Malaysia, and Flores. In contrast, the dental characteristics of most modern Southeast Asians exhibit a mixture of traits associated with East Asians and Australo-Melanesians, suggesting that these populations were genetically influenced by immigrants from East Asia. East Asian metric and/or nonmetric traits are also found in some prehistoric samples from Southeast Asia such as Ban Kao (Thailand), implying that immigration probably began in the early Neolithic. Much clearer influence of East Asian immigration was found in Early Metal Age Vietnamese and Sulawesi samples. Although the results of this study are consistent with the immigration hypothesis, analysis of additional Neolithic samples is needed to determine the exact timing of population dispersals into Southeast Asia. 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansa Musa: Can you tell us anything about the biological history of this region Thought? In particular I am interested in the genetic makeup of the Lebanese.
Thought Writes:
What period of time are you interested in?
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
The Phoencians were Black According to the bible Qu'ran and Torah.
Thought Writes:
The non-sense continues on this forum.
As a norm, I take the "wait & see" approach before I judge a personality, but there is a need to be watchful of individuals who pretend to agree with facts presented here on a daily basis, pertaining to the realities of the Nile Valley and other Africans, and then spew out pseudo-scholarship in the name of solidarity with the truth seekers, all the while being a "spy" [as someone put it earlier] or "instigator" harboring an ideological agenda contrary to the aforementioned FACTS. The idea here of course, is to hope that truth seekers turn a blind eye or not speak out against such pseudo-scholarship garbage, or else, trick the innocent but less informed ones into accepting the gibberish, so as to discredit them all by giving the impression that all concur with the garbage spewed [by the spy/instigator]. This is how people of various backgrounds are lumped into an "ideological" entity [e.g. the targeting of "Afrocentrism"] and "collectively" discredited by what some amateur might have said here or there. This is the tactic that Lefkowitz supposedly used to argue against her opponents...picking up what some amateur might have said [about Cleopatra being "black"] somewhere, and using that as a premises to discredit her lettered opponents.
Thought Writes:
You hit the nail on the head!
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansa Musa: Can you tell us anything about the biological history of this region Thought? In particular I am interested in the genetic makeup of the Lebanese.
Thought Writes:
What period of time are you interested in?
Basically just an overview of what is known about its genetic makeup as it relates to the region's overall history. In particular from the beginning of the Ottoman period to the present.
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansa Musa: I agree. Richard Poe gives credence to the idea that the Phonecians were mixed race by proposing the question of why the ancient myths counted them as a Son of Ham (Ancient Phonecia is believed to be Modern Lebanon and Canaan a Son of Ham is a region that extended from Modern Israel through Lebanon to Syria).
If Herodotus' accounts are anything to go by, the Canaanites had physical and some cultural affinities with Ancient Egyptians.
Correction: Excuse me; I am in error here. I was thinking the Colchis!
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed it was Colchis, Herodotus actually states that the Phonecians adopted circumsicion from the Colchians who learned it from the Egyptians but noted that it is not an indegenious practice and that in Greece Phonecian immigrants often abandoned the practice.
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
1) The first Chinese were black: Well, most of the aboriginal people in Southeast Asia were indeed black, as seen in the temples of Angkor Wat. In fact, if you believe the out of Africa theory, then man moved out of Africa into the rest of the world, including China. There is a sizable population of aboriginal blacks in Cabodia, Thailand, Taiwan, Laos, Burma New Guinea, Vietnam, the Phillippines and so on. Many of these aboriginal tribes are now definitely in the minority and definitely oppressed in many cases.
In fact, not too many years ago, anthropologists actually claimed to have to "discovered" a tribe that was totally ignorant of the outside world around them. These guys looked no different than Africans in Africa.
Of course all Eurasians were originally black but we are talking about civilizations. Chinese were not black but they did have references to rare groups in deep Southeast Asia who they called 'black heads'. The civilization of Angkor was not black but was created by the ancestors of the Khmer (Cambodians) perhaps the only civilization with any connections to Negritos is Funan, whose earliest references from China spoke of a dark-skinned queen with wooly hair. Although such a description was only rumor there was still the possibility. But it is ridiculous to attribute the features of Angkor statuary to 'black' features since many "mongoloid" peoples in Southeast Asia today have those same features!
quote:Now, I dont know when homo-sapiens got to China, but it is possible that the aboriginal(meaning first) homo-sapiens there may have been dark brown skinned. As a matter of fact, there are eskimos all over Northern Asia and America who are quite dark even though they are distinctly more asian in character. Many of the ancient mongol hordes would have been this way as well.
Actually, the only reason why Inuit (Eskimos) and other Siberians who live along the coasts are dark is because of their consumption of vitamin-D rich fish. According to anthropologists like Jablonsky et al, light-skin evolved as a response to less vitamin-D from less sunlight in populations farther north. Those that consumed fish rich in vitamin-D seem to be the only exception.
quote:2. The indus valley complex is in a part of India that has a sizeable black population, meaning people with medium to dark brown skin. India itself is a predominantly black population even now. For anyone to deny this is incredible. Most of the ancient indian monuments portray people of distinctly negroid features, very similar to those depicted in many places in asia, like Angkor Wat in Cambodia.The reason so many want to point out the achievements of the native aboriginal population in India, is precisely because of the whole history of Aryanism in Indian history and the rest
The part about India is true, but again not about Angkor.
quote:3.) Olmec civilization was black.
The olmec heads in South America are some of the most negroid statues anywhere on the planet. That is part of the reason they are so famous, since this phenotype was quite unexpected in South America.
Again, there are rural peoples in Meso-America that have the exact same features as the Olmec statues yet they are all Native Americans and NOT black. One may argue about the presence of black aboriginals who were the first true modern humans to reach America but that was tens of millenia ago before there was an Olmec civilization. Besides, new findings show that the oldest civilizations in the Americas began in South America and were predecessors of the Inca.
Seriously, to attribute these cultures to blacks on account of similarity in features would be doing the SAME exact thing that Eurocentrists have been doing for centuries when they claimed a civilization was "caucasoid" because the depictions had such features as narrow noses.
quote:7. Everybody in the world was originally black before adaptation made them white, Mongoloid, etc
Unless these types were present when homo sapiens exited Africa, then yes indeed this would be true. Darwin is the one you seem to have a beef with.
Darwin had nothing to do with the Out-of-African origin theory of mankind which was postulated centuries after his death. It's true that all humans in the world were originally black, but what does that have to do with the development of the civilizations you mentioned earlier??
As far as Southeast Asia is concerned, the aboriginal populations still exist in the most remotest areas of the country. Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam and Laos all have people similar to the negritoes in the Phillippines that live in the most remote mountain areas. These are the people that I refer to when I am speaking of Angkor. You may disagree, but I do believe that the people of Angor are depicted with curly hair, a trait that is no longer prevalent in Cambodia. Anyway, this rare photograph of some aboriginal "pearr" men shows what I mean :
(even though this is not cambodia, this is a good page showing the influxes of different groups through south asia, as well as the aboriginal population)
Oh. and while on the "civilizations", you have to realize that the kingdoms and civilizations that were prominent in ancient times are now gone. Those that built those kingdoms are also gone. For example, the ancient Champa kindoms were a bhuddist group who supposedly came from India and built many temples throughout Southeast Asia, especially in Vietnam. Some say they were from India. Anyway, all that is left of these cultures is mainly in ruins of temples scattered in the countryside.
If you really want to dig into the ancient civilizations of southeast asia you would have to start with those like the Cham or Champa people. And sorry, no the y do not look exactly like modern day Vietnamese. And because they were buddhist, it is likely that they were from in and around India, which would explain some of the physical differences. It is thought that Khmer at Angkor, who fought the Cham, were influenced by the Cham, who go back at least to 192AD.
As far as South America goes, there are many native groups, relatively unmixed with anyone else, who are still very dark. There are quite a few very dark tribes even in Mexico. I myself have seen photos of many tribes in South America with features like the Olmec heads who also had very dark skin. And no I am not trying to be like the Eurocentrics. However, to gloss over or deny that there were so many people of color (meaning medium to dark brown skin) in so many places in the world is a lie, nothing else. No, not all tribes in South America are dark, but there were and are still many that are. (Albeit it is hard to tell how representative they are of the original tribes, since the influx of modern Africans, Asians and Europeans into South America.)
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
good africentrism: Ideas and arguments which awaken people of african descent to information they need to see themselves and their history and the history of the world (AS ALL OTHER PEOPLE DO), "WITHOUT" the inherent subjective bias of european education and EUROPEAN standards of reasonable doubt.
How threatened are non africans by ideas (......remember.....just ideas)and theories which cast doubt about the objectivity of so many different subjects - as they relate to african contributions in antiquity; Bottany archaeology anthropology genetics geology agriculture chemistry mathematics philosophy.
Given the level of diversity genetically and phenotypically of Africans on the continent; and given the freedoms (environmentally and culturally) Africans enjoyed to pursue the myriad of endeavors - which they obviously did; given the "AGE" of Africans among modern humans - homo sapien sapien; the question arises:
despite all the attempts to separate fragment and disect the "PYRAMID" of achievement which is the complete history of "BLACK" people; despite the overwhelming physical, botanical, mathmatical, chemical, anthropological, archaeological, agricultural, and genetic evidence in support of incredible accomplishment by the "BLACKS" BY THE "AFRICANS"; NOW that we are educated in the arts and sciences of europeans (BY WAY OF AFRICA) why should we bother stroking the egos of non africans any longer?
History does not at all suggest that there has been an objective interpretation of the evidence and artifacts by non AFROCENTRISTS - in fact our very treatment on a variety of platforms is justified by the very notion that we have "not" made contributions to and accomplishments in history.
Good afrocentrism is any afrocentrism - right or wrong! The "ENTIRE" educational process for most people of african descent is the antithesis of Afrocentrism and there needs to be ballance period!
so embarrassed are the Europeans at their lack of accomplishment in antiquity (not today of course) that they feel a need to define the history of other cultures for the other cultures. Why not ask them for definitions. The attacks are so flawed and the minds of european academicians are so clouded that they try to redistrict whole geographical regions in the way of democratic voting systems; western asia is now europe........egypt and north africa is now middle east - even though the culture and religious and political practices until the romans were authentically African............. every one living in hot tropical lands not clothed in harsh western asian winter styled clothing is considered savage.............
justification of slavery or segregation/apparthied is not possible with acknowledgement of african accomplishmen.........
all these factors inform our present perspective on matters of Africa and we speak of good and bad afrocentrism - like academia is on the verge of collapse because of it.
PLEASE...............
BAD AFROCENTRISM: no afrocentrism - there really is no other type if you are afrocentric then your beliefs are defined by a need to be resilliant in an atmosphere of academic hostility and rhetoric which obviously have roots in a genetic inferiority complex on the part of non africans............... so the question becomes:
What the hell are they so afraid of?
Posts: 236 | From: chicago, illinois, | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:but there is a need to be watchful of individuals who pretend to agree with facts presented here on a daily basis, pertaining to the realities of the Nile Valley and other Africans, and then spew out pseudo-scholarship in the name of solidarity with the truth seekers
And the sooner forum 'regulars' catch on to this, the better.
TSD: I dislike the premise of this entire thread as it basically baits straw arguments, rather than dealing with the real issues.
We could be discussing the latest peer review scholarship of Keita or Brace, the latest archeological digs in Egypt, the findings from European geneticists that modern Euro's are not closely related to Neolithic Euro's.
Instead, you pull a Lefkowitz and choose to chase "straw-women" issues like "Cleopatra" - who is only known to "history" to begin with due to the distortions of Eurocentric romanticism.
I like most of your posts but, thumbs down to this one.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Masonic Rebel: So in your opinion it’s Non-sense to believe that Cleopatra was of Mix Heritage or a person of color.
Thought Writes:
What is non-sense is the supposition that anyone, anywhere is NOT of "Mix Heritage" (whatever that means). Humans have been 'mixing' since the Upper Paleolithic period. The issue is PRIMARY biological AND cultural origin of the Ancient Egyptians during the formative period (pre-dynastic to Middle Kingdom). I refuse to be sucked into non-issues on this forum. Especially now that we are cleaning this place up and getting ready to "launch" a new pilot program by bringing peer-reviewed scholars to the site.
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
So in your opinion it’s Non-sense to believe that Cleopatra was of Mix Heritage or a person of color.
So what do you think about this portrayal of King Tut.
He’s looking a little pale for a Boy King who Rule a Kingdom in an African Desert for 8 years.
Why are the people in the Tomb Dark or Light Brown, but Tut in the Pic above looks white.
Let’s not start this debate again.
You are preaching to the choir on the Tut issue. However, you need to be more careful about attributing racial descriptions to Egyptians in respect to certain dynasties. Many dynasties were of foreign rule. Cleopetra is an example.
From Persians to likely even Hebrews, many groups of people have taken control of Egypt.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for King Tut, this has been hashed over many times. However, the reconstruction does not look like a White person but rather similar to other East African people.
Besides color don't you think the features of this Ethiopian looks the same as that of the Tut reconstruction:
Cleopatra the VII ruled during the MACEDONIAN/PTOLEMAIC PERIOD. Their people were European and ruled almost 750 years after the native Egyptians lost power.
The discussion of the inaccurate Tut reconstruction is neither here nor there.
This is probably NOT what Cleopatra looked like:
The fact of the matter is the Cleopatra issue is a strawmen argument used to discredit Afrocentrists when only a minority of them actually believe Cleopatra had any Egyptian or Nubian blood.
Since we don't know the ethnic background of one of her grandmothers is it possible that she was a Nubian or native Egyptian concubine? Yes.
Would that ancestry be enough to make her look substantially Black African despite all her other known ancestors being Greek? Yes.
But is it likely? No.
It is speculation at best.
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Africa when viewed through a correct and objective lens, made a huge impact in the world with a continuity that spans back to the first humans.
Let's go with that thought
Ok who were the first Humans in recorded history?
Answer: The Africans
Now if the first humans were Africans and created the world first civilization common sense will tell us that maybe the original people in African migrated to other places in the world.
Did the Africans develop the ability to make boats?
Answer: Yes
Did the Africans sail to different parts of the world?
Masonic, what do the first humans of pre-history have to do with recorded history?!
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thought2: Thought Writes:
Are you suggesting that there were no Melanesean types found in Shang graves?
Are you suggesting that there were?? This is a first! What evidence of 'Melanesians' in northern China are you talking about?? I already discussed about the features of "mongoloid" people which vary as well and do not conform to one 'type'.
quote:Thought Writes: Actually the early Olmec burials contained some Melanesean types as well.
Again, I have not heard of this. What evidence is this? There are people in Central America who have such features why must you attribute them to black Melanesians?
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Masonic Rebel: Cleopatra was a "beautiful black woman"
The Phoencians were Black According to the bible Qu'ran and Torah.
What passage was this? Last time I checked Phoenicians were a Semitic speaking groups related to Syrians. Canaanites are a different matter but there is no doubt that Phoenicians had some connection with them.
quote:This is why some believe Cleopatra was Black.
How so? What do Phoenicians have to do with Cleopatra who is a descendant of one of Alexander's generals Ptolemy.
quote:I have the belief that Cleopatra was mix heritage, so there is a chance she was a person of color.[/qb
As I said, there is little to no chance of Cleopatra having mixed heritage. The Ptolemies never allowed foreign ancestry into their family as did many Greek/Macedonian elites. Heck, they did not even allow native Egyptians into the city of Alexandria unless they were servants!
She could have look a little like this.
[/quote] Actually, in my opinion Ashanti looks a lot more like Hatshepsut and considering Cleopatra's ancestry such a look is doubtful.
quote:The debate rages on
there is really no debate about it. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansa Musa: That part isn't so much non-sense until you add the second part to it.
"This is why some believe Cleopatra was Black."
Maybe he was thinking of Hannibal who was a Cartheginian general (Carthage was a Phonecian colony).
Cleopatra VII was an Egyptian Queen of the Ptolmaic dynasty and of Macedonian lineage. Is it possible that the Ptolomies mixed blood with the Native Egyptians who at the time were still predominately Black African? Yes.
But is it likely? No.
As Djehuti pointed out the Hellenic elite were very xenophobic, they did not approve royal intermarriage with foreigners all of whom were considered to be Barbarians (people who were not Native Greeks) and this trend continued after the age of Alexander the Great, who's views of cultural assimilation were very liberal for the time period.
Peasants could intermarry and the elite had concubines and possibly children with them but it was rare for elite Greeks to name such children as successors. Alexander's mother herself was rumored to be a barbarian though.
This is a surviving bust of Cleopatra.
It is said that she was more intelligent than she was beautiful and perhaps won over Antony and Julius Ceasar with her charmn rather than her looks. Though perhaps this was considered to be aesthetically beautiful in that time period.
In my opinion someone who looks like Cleopatra cannot compare to the beauty of a lovely lady like Ashanti who has the face of a Goddess, Masonic Rebel.
I also don't think Ashanti is a good example of a mixed race person if that is what you were insinuating. I saw her parents on her driven special they were both Black. In WN circles I've actually been in debates with racists who insisted that Black women were only beautiful if they had a significant amount of non-African blood. I started spamming pictures for entertainment and one guy insisted that all my pictures were of women who were biracial even NATIVE WEST AFRICANS!
The guy was a crack pot.
These two women look equal in beauty to me.
All of this is correct Mansa.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is more good people or bad people not the isms presented. Who lokks like who game is fun but the reality is usually different.
Just like the ancestors of deMedici family or Puskin (the Russian writer) look nothing like their African forebears. Even Beethhoven with no obvious recent African ancestry looked like what Afrocentrists call 'blak', or the name recognition of Schwartezenegger!!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by yazid904: It is more good people or bad people not the isms presented. Who lokks like who game is fun but the reality is usually different.
Just like the ancestors of deMedici family or Puskin (the Russian writer) look nothing like their African forebears. Even Beethhoven with no obvious recent African ancestry looked like what Afrocentrists call 'blak', or the name recognition of Schwartezenegger!!
You know what, some of this Afrocentric crap is just too stupid to be credible. I think some anti-Afrocentrists made some of that stuff up to discredit the mainstream scholars.
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yazid is correct about the Medicis of Italy. There was a thread started on this before about one of the Medici men marrying a black North African woman and had a son. Of course the Hore went nuts over this and insisted that the boy was still European because of his culture.
quote:
Pictured here is Allesandro De Medici, the Duke of Florence who lived from 1510-1534, son of an African woman and Cardinal Giulio de Medici who later became none other than Pope Clement VII.
On being elected Pope in 1523, Cardinal Giulio was forced to relinquish the lordship of Florence but he appointed a regent for his thirteen year old son Alessandro who had just been created Duke of Penna, and a nephew, Ipollito.
Historian Mario de Valdes y Cocom Alessandro states that Allesandro wielded great power as the first duke of Florence.
He was the patron of some of the leading artists of the era and is one of the two Medici princes whose remains are buried in the famous tomb by Michaelangelo. As Cocom states, "The ethnic make up of this Medici Prince makes him the first black head of state in the modern western world."-Mario de Valdes y Cocom)
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness: Everybody in the world was originally black before adaptation made them white, Mongoloid, etc
Thought Writes:
I see we have a proponent of Evil E's outdated "Generalized Moderns" among us.
No, I certainly do not, I believe the first humans fit within the range of meaurements that encompass modern humans but I do not believe we can place them in a race as we do recent modern humans.
Posts: 285 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:but there is a need to be watchful of individuals who pretend to agree with facts presented here on a daily basis, pertaining to the realities of the Nile Valley and other Africans, and then spew out pseudo-scholarship in the name of solidarity with the truth seekers
And the sooner forum 'regulars' catch on to this, the better.
TSD: I dislike the premise of this entire thread as it basically baits straw arguments, rather than dealing with the real issues.
We could be discussing the latest peer review scholarship of Keita or Brace, the latest archeological digs in Egypt, the findings from European geneticists that modern Euro's are not closely related to Neolithic Euro's.
Instead, you pull a Lefkowitz and choose to chase "straw-women" issues like "Cleopatra" - who is only known to "history" to begin with due to the distortions of Eurocentric romanticism.
I like most of your posts but, thumbs down to this one.
I wasn't trying to pull a Lefkowitz here, just wanted to point out that there is bad scholarship amongst some African-centered scholars. These people are often attacked as an excuse to discredit Afrocentrism and its unfair to criticize Afrocentrism as a whole. A few misguided African-centered scholars should not make all of Afrocentrism rotten. Conversely, those scholars of European history should likewise denounce Eurocentrism. Some like Bsil Davidson for example, have denounced Eurocentrism.
Posts: 285 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Hehe, Ashanti should play Queen Hatshepsut in a movie should would be perfect for the part. Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Yazid is correct about the Medicis of Italy. There was a thread started on this before about one of the Medici men marrying a black North African woman and had a son. Of course the Hore went nuts over this and insisted that the boy was still European because of his culture.
quote:
Pictured here is Allesandro De Medici, the Duke of Florence who lived from 1510-1534, son of an African woman and Cardinal Giulio de Medici who later became none other than Pope Clement VII.
On being elected Pope in 1523, Cardinal Giulio was forced to relinquish the lordship of Florence but he appointed a regent for his thirteen year old son Alessandro who had just been created Duke of Penna, and a nephew, Ipollito.
Historian Mario de Valdes y Cocom Alessandro states that Allesandro wielded great power as the first duke of Florence.
He was the patron of some of the leading artists of the era and is one of the two Medici princes whose remains are buried in the famous tomb by Michaelangelo. As Cocom states, "The ethnic make up of this Medici Prince makes him the first black head of state in the modern western world."-Mario de Valdes y Cocom)
Interesting
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
why should we bother stroking the egos of non africans any longer?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic