This topic is based on the paper The Origin of the Zimbabwean Civilization by R. Gayre of Gayre which is quite popular in white supremacist circles. The arguments raised in the paper seem convincing only if one is ignorant of African history and physical anthropology. I mean the first argument he presents which is one of the most absurd is that "Negroes" are incapable of irrigation technology and that only "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid" peoples are capable of inventing such. Of course he includes Egyptians and Ethiopians in the former racial category, but he's apparently clueless about ancient Niger River Valley irrigation. A second significant argument is on the physical anthropology. He cites facial features of artifacts such as narrow faces and noses and skulls that are "non-negroid", so apparently he has never heard of the "Kaffir race" which is an outdated racial grouping similar to the "Hamitic race" except they inhabited southern Africa. One can still see the same leptoprosopic faces and leptorhine noses of modern Zulu and Xhosa.
So of course nobody takes the claims of this Gayre guy seriously except the typical Stormfront, American Renaissance losers and their South Afrikaner ilk. Rather I post this paper as an example par excellence that the white-wash of Africa does not end with North Africa or Egypt alone. The Horn especially Ethiopia is whitewashed and but so too is Tichitt Culture of Niger and so too Great Zimbabwe of Southern Africa. I have even heard rumors that the white losers are even claiming the Nok civilization of the Niger River Valley as also "Caucasoid"!
So you see, nowhere in Africa is safe from white-wash not even Sub-Sahara itself! So the lesson is if there's a civilization in Africa it must have been founded by Cacazoids. LOL Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Most important is to learn the positive history of the region than to protest against 50 yr old writings trying to revive old self serving overt Eurocentric colonialist bullshit.
Oh, I forgot his one from my collection https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdKD4-fVnyE I suggest viewing it before any of the above vids.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I appreciate the links Tukuler. Again, this is why the so-called "debate" or "battle" over the black identity of Egypt is just a microcosm of has been going on in Western academia for decades. No part of African soil is safe from the Euronut supremacists and I hope that even negrophobes like Antalas can see this.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I wince at belittling terms like Euronut or CACAzoids (which smarts no different than calling African blacks shitskins, caca and is from the old Latin cac=shit https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/caca) and my battle best ignores supremacists like that Beur rather than give them a platform or a rep off of my name and well known writings.
I think somewhat like Haki Madhubuti co-founder of the Institute of Positive Education who teaches
quote:However, we must not define ourselves or our struggle on their evil. We can't build a movement on anti-white man, anti-capitalism or anti-Europe/America. No! We build on pro-black people, pro-Ujamaa (Co-operative economics), pro-Pan-Afrikanism, thus defining ourselves in the positive and not only giving direction by our definitions , but values--values that would not be evident if we define in the anti-tradition. Also by defining in the positive the negative is defined <<by dialectic>>. If we're for Co-Operative Economics we're by definition against anything opposed to that <<without explict naming each such thing>>. -1973-
.
Being Pinoy none of that applies to you but very much does so for the Transdisciplinary Black Scholar.
And forgive my straight forwardness of late. Been too ill to burn trees or consume edibles for more than a week now and, since the phony pandemic, can't find Marley's Mellow Mood tea on the supermarket shelves. So it's Tukuler al-Takruri UNCHAINED (er, off da chain and raging in pain).
At least not many people outside hardcore White supremacist communities take the attempt to whitewash Great Zimbabwe seriously. If only ancient Egyptians and certain other ancient North Africans received the same courtesy.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ The white-washing of North Africa is much easier not only due to the longer tradition of it but also certain bio-anthropological traits of North Africans that make it easier to align them with Eurasians. But after North Africa comes the Horn, and after that comes the rest of East Africa as shown in Gayre's thesis which leads to Zimbabwe.
Let's not forget the paper that came out a couple years back on Khoisan having "Eurasian" ancestry. So Sub-Sahara is not off limits to white-washing.
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: At least not many people outside hardcore White supremacist communities take the attempt to whitewash Great Zimbabwe seriously. If only ancient Egyptians and certain other ancient North Africans received the same courtesy.
I am sure you and Djehuti have noticed in confrontations with these people that they suffer extreme cognitive dissonance when you eviscerate or debunk their arguments. Its like a contrary view can't exist, like you driving a huge knife into their ribs or heart. I am surprised they are still peddling the old white Zimbabwe theory still, with "king Solomon's mines" Phoenicians flitting about the landscape to civilize the natives and show them how to build the Zimbabwe walls etc. I thought this had disappeared with the old South African pro-apartheid dinosaurs that pop up here and there. But then again the dissonance is too painful for many to bear.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ The white-washing of North Africa is much easier not only due to the longer tradition of it but also certain bio-anthropological traits of North Africans that make it easier to align them with Eurasians. But after North Africa comes the Horn, and after that comes the rest of East Africa as shown in Gayre's thesis which leads to Zimbabwe.
Let's not forget the paper that came out a couple years back on Khoisan having "Eurasian" ancestry. So Sub-Sahara is not off limits to white-washing.
Both whites and blacks should stop obsessing over our regions. North africans are predominantly eurasian since the upper paleolithic and horners are between 40-50% eurasian; such type of ancestry is also found in the rest of east africa albeit in lower proportion.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ The white-washing of North Africa is much easier not only due to the longer tradition of it but also certain bio-anthropological traits of North Africans that make it easier to align them with Eurasians. But after North Africa comes the Horn, and after that comes the rest of East Africa as shown in Gayre's thesis which leads to Zimbabwe.
Let's not forget the paper that came out a couple years back on Khoisan having "Eurasian" ancestry. So Sub-Sahara is not off limits to white-washing.
Both whites and blacks should stop obsessing over our regions. North africans are predominantly eurasian since the upper paleolithic and horners are between 40-50% eurasian; such type of ancestry is also found in the rest of east africa albeit in lower proportion.
15kya Morocco, Taforalt is E1b1b
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: but he's apparently clueless about ancient Niger River Valley irrigation. A second significant argument is on the physical anthropology. He cites facial features of artifacts such as narrow faces and noses and skulls that are "non-negroid", so apparently he has never heard of the "Kaffir race" which is an outdated racial grouping similar to the "Hamitic race" except they inhabited southern Africa. One can still see the same leptoprosopic faces and leptorhine noses of modern Zulu and Xhosa.
I have heard of basin irrigation in the Niger, do you guys have anything on this? Saw some commentary years ago but didn't get details. Also what links etc. do you have on the leptorhine noses of modern Zulu and Xhosa.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Both whites and blacks should stop obsessing over our regions.
It is whites who have been obsessing over Africa for well over a century especially North Africa but not just North Africa as I've clearly cited.
quote:North Africans are predominantly Eurasian since the upper paleolithic...
You keep repeating this same lie no matter how many times you have been debunked on countless threads in this forum and most recently here.
quote:..and Horners are between 40-50% Eurasian; such type of ancestry is also found in the rest of east africa albeit in lower proportion.
Another debunked lie. Y chromosome studies show that Populations of the Ethiopia-Eritrea region are 40% Eurasian namely Ethio-Semitic speakers and not any higher than that. But Eurasionuts like yourself love to exaggerate (lie about) that number and apply it to the entire Horn region. About 33% of Europeans have African ancestry and the percentage is higher in Southwest Asia but Eurasionuts like yourself always ignore that!
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] This topic is based on the paper The Origin of the Zimbabwean Civilization by R. Gayre of Gayre which is quite popular in white supremacist circles.
you exhuming this 1972 article from it's grave, to suggest it is even worth linking to and reading is to breathe new life into it
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: It is whites who have been obsessing over Africa for well over a century especially North Africa but not just North Africa as I've clearly cited.
Today there are far more blacks obsessing over north africa than whites. We're constantly harassed by afrocentrists while encounter with eurocentrists are much more rare.
Examples like this are common :
I know no whites who larp as north african like that.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: You keep repeating this same lie no matter how many times you have been debunked on countless threads in this forum and most recently here.
It has never been "debunked" this is simply factual :
quote:"To demonstrate that IAM has a Levantine origin, rather than a local origin in Africa, we tested f4(IAM, Chimp; Levantine population, African population), with the Levantine population being BedouinB, Levant_N or Natufian, and the African population being Jo’hoan North, Mbuti, Mota or Yoruba. All comparisons are positive, with high significant Z scores, indicating IAM is more related to Levantine than to African populations (Table S10.1). "
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Another debunked lie. Y chromosome studies show that Populations of the Ethiopia-Eritrea region are 40% Eurasian namely Ethio-Semitic speakers and not any higher than that. But Eurasionuts like yourself love to exaggerate (lie about) that number and apply it to the entire Horn region. About 33% of Europeans have African ancestry and the percentage is higher in Southwest Asia but Eurasionuts like yourself always ignore that!
Y chromosome are not autosomal results. By autosomal, Horners are overall 40-50% west eurasian :
Nobody cares about eurasians having a few % of "african" ancestry that's not comparable to north africans being predominantly eurasian genetically and horners scoring 40/50 % of it.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
A thread about Great Zimbabwe of all places had to turn into another conversation about the "Blackness" of North and Northeast Africans, all because of our resident Frenchman and his insecurities. Sheesh.
Posted by Mighty Mack (Member # 17601) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: It is whites who have been obsessing over Africa for well over a century especially North Africa but not just North Africa as I've clearly cited.
Today there are far more blacks obsessing over north africa than whites. We're constantly harassed by afrocentrists while encounter with eurocentrists are much more rare.
Yet here you are posting screenshots and sharing your opinion of these black people on this forum. Why are you so invested in what black people think? This tells me your greatest fear is what black people are saying is true. How are people like you being harassed?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mighty Mack: Yet here you are posting screenshots and sharing your opinion of these black people on this forum. Why are you so invested in what black people think? This tells me your greatest fear is what black people are saying is true. How are people like you being harassed? [/QB]
Literally 3/4 of posts about north africa on the internet are filled with blacks spamming their afrocentrist theories and their racism towards north africans and you dare to ask me why I react ?
Just type "ancient egypt" on IG and see the comment section of any picture you want; same on twitter, youtube, fb, etc So it's not about "caring about what black people think" it's about fighting racism and cultural/historical appropriation.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
this thread is not about ancient Azania this thread about white baiting/bashing and fueling beef between certain ES members
nobody's learning shite about Africa bodies are learning 50 yr old white supremacy and how to invite nobody know nothings to spar using SE African civilizations as a foil/snare
it look like active ES members couldn't give a good shite about actual African Studies
inactive members truly interested in Africana have given up hope and quit posting
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:
surprised they are still peddling the old white Zimbabwe theory
.
It did. The OP article is 50 years old, written before 95% of the membership was even born.
The OP is the one peddling this, resurrecting a dead dog, the OP and all posters neglecting to post anything about ancient Azania.
Let sleeping dogs lie.
African Studies place is not about some woke bullshit like confronting white supremacists' internal ideologies.
African Studies is in part about raising consciousness of Africa(ns) at home and abroad for those who want to learn.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: This topic is based on the paper The Origin of the Zimbabwean Civilization by R. Gayre of Gayre which is quite popular in white supremacist circles. The arguments raised in the paper seem convincing only if one is ignorant of African history and physical anthropology. I mean the first argument he presents which is one of the most absurd is that "Negroes" are incapable of irrigation technology and that only "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid" peoples are capable of inventing such. Of course he includes Egyptians and Ethiopians in the former racial category, but he's apparently clueless about ancient Niger River Valley irrigation. A second significant argument is on the physical anthropology. He cites facial features of artifacts such as narrow faces and noses and skulls that are "non-negroid", so apparently he has never heard of the "Kaffir race" which is an outdated racial grouping similar to the "Hamitic race" except they inhabited southern Africa. One can still see the same leptoprosopic faces and leptorhine noses of modern Zulu and Xhosa.
So of course nobody takes the claims of this Gayre guy seriously except the typical Stormfront, American Renaissance losers and their South Afrikaner ilk. Rather I post this paper as an example par excellence that the white-wash of Africa does not end with North Africa or Egypt alone. The Horn especially Ethiopia is whitewashed and but so too is Tichitt Culture of Niger and so too Great Zimbabwe of Southern Africa. I have even heard rumors that the white losers are even claiming the Nok civilization of the Niger River Valley as also "Caucasoid"!
So you see, nowhere in Africa is safe from white-wash not even Sub-Sahara itself! So the lesson is if there's a civilization in Africa it must have been founded by Cacazoids. LOL
True. But the larger context is that the colonial era was all about "exploration" for Europeans to go out and "discover" and "redefine" history, identity and culture in a way to elevant the European in world history and contemporary affairs. Stealing land, artifacts, people, resources and anything of value, including history itself all is part of the colonial system. This is why these histories of Africa are for the most part written by Europeans and this is based on but a small part of all the loot they have stolen from Africa over hundreds of years. Unfortunately the biggest problem is getting Africans to want to tell their own history instead of allowing others to do it.
Good video on this from African brother on youtube:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: African Studies is in part about raising consciousness of Africa(ns) at home and abroad for those who want to learn.
I second this post.
Posted by Forty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ The white-washing of North Africa is much easier not only due to the longer tradition of it but also certain bio-anthropological traits of North Africans that make it easier to align them with Eurasians. But after North Africa comes the Horn, and after that comes the rest of East Africa as shown in Gayre's thesis which leads to Zimbabwe.
Let's not forget the paper that came out a couple years back on Khoisan having "Eurasian" ancestry. So Sub-Sahara is not off limits to white-washing.
Both whites and blacks should stop obsessing over our regions. North africans are predominantly eurasian since the upper paleolithic and horners are between 40-50% eurasian; such type of ancestry is also found in the rest of east africa albeit in lower proportion.
That models as Eurasia as a subset of Africa. Africa is Eurasia+
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ The white-washing of North Africa is much easier not only due to the longer tradition of it but also certain bio-anthropological traits of North Africans that make it easier to align them with Eurasians. But after North Africa comes the Horn, and after that comes the rest of East Africa as shown in Gayre's thesis which leads to Zimbabwe.
Let's not forget the paper that came out a couple years back on Khoisan having "Eurasian" ancestry. So Sub-Sahara is not off limits to white-washing.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: It is whites who have been obsessing over Africa for well over a century especially North Africa but not just North Africa as I've clearly cited.
Today there are far more blacks obsessing over north africa than whites. We're constantly harassed by afrocentrists while encounter with eurocentrists are much more rare.
Examples like this are common :
I know no whites who larp as north african like that.
Wow. We learn that anyone who posts vacation pics of some black people posing next to some pyramids or a hotel are undertaking this huge campaign of "harassment"?
Really? One wonders where are these massive numbers of suffering "north africans" complaining about this "harassment"? With such a dastardly conspiracy going on, there should be many credible links showing the north african "sufferahs" enduring "constant" harassment. Strangely nothing credible showing this mass campaign ha been offered. Guess pics of black people on vacation qualify as "harassment."
And some say "far more blacks obsessing"? Really? All this from 2-3 vacation pics? Who are these "obsessing blacks?" If there was such a campaign against north africans" it should be easily able to demonstrate it with SPECIFIC examples of the mass campaign. But we know the old troll angle playing.. Like ""white nord" used to play.. lol
Pause. Wait for standard furious "denial" and so on.. Wait for Anglo's old "Hamitic Union" to put in an appearance... Cue dupe account "replies" and so on... lmao..
^^The woman above posed for a vacation snapshot and then talk about her hotel and a few drinks. This is part of the "black harassment" campaign?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
@zaharan Why do you purposely omit the fact they explicitly claim those civilisations ? And you think I'll spam hundreds of pictures ? You maybe need something like this ? :
Like I said you can check any photo of artifacts from ancient or medieval north africa and you'll see comments like this :
There are also literally tons of videos of afro-americans disrespecting local egyptians calling them "arabs" and treating them with disdain here an example : https://www.instagram.com/reel/CkOT6zwAjJ2/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
LOL you are just trolling. Simply because someone "posts" a "tweet" (and that someone could be trolling as well, which Instagram, Facebook etc is famous for) does not constitute a black "harassment campaign" against "North Africans." You aren't fooling anyone with Your own manufactured "outrage" campaign. But carry on nevertheless...
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mighty Mack:
Yet here you are posting screenshots and sharing your opinion of these black people on this forum. Why are you so invested in what black people think? This tells me your greatest fear is what black people are saying is true. How are people like you being harassed?
Apparently TRUTH harasses him.
Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues A-M Mekota1 and M Vermehren2 Department of Biology I, Biodiversity Research/Anthropology, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin. In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed. To evaluate the influence of post-mortum tissue decay by micro-organisms, the samples were tested for the presence of fungi using silver staining
Old Kingdom
Middle Kingdom
New Kingdom
(^when this portrait was originally posted Antalas claimed it was a modern 'Afrocentric' fake LOL)
modern Egyptians
^ And yes the above men are natives to the Giza area NOT Aswan or anywhere near the Sudan! LOL Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
Has there ever been a genetic study comparing lower-class Egyptians (aka baladi or fellahin) from their upper-class compatriots? ES veterans might remember an article by an Egyptian writer (I forgot his name, unfortunately) observing that lower-class Egyptians tend to have darker skin and more indigenous (African) cultural traits than the upper-class ones, and there is that old Lucotte paper comparing the frequency of certain haplogroups in Lower versus Upper Egypt, but I haven't seen a paper describing a significant genetic difference between Egyptians of different social strata. It would be interesting to see if, regardless of location, rural and lower-class Egyptians tend to have more indigenous African ancestry than the urban upper class.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
And as far as harassment goes...while it's never OK to bully or harass someone for their racial or ethnic background, I can vouch from years of personal experience that North African ethno-nationalists (whether Egyptian or Maghrebi) are every bit as prone to harassing behavior as the hoteps they whine about. And they often aren't subtle about their racist motivations, either. Andumbass himself is no stranger to that behavior. So he and his buddies can cry me a river of (off-) white tears about those mean Afrocentrics.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ It's called the hypocritical crybully phenomenon. You have North Africans like the Egyptians be appallingly racist to Africans from further south (even if its within their own country) but when they enter Europe and get called 'black' or 'darky' or worse, complain about white racism. It's similar to how in North America Mexicans complain about racism towards them and the phrase "dirty Mexican" or stereotypes about them being dumb or backwards while in Mexico it's not uncommon to hear derogatory talk about Hispanics from Central America being called names like "Guatemalteco sucio" (dirty Guatemalan) or "Nicas tontos" (dumb Nicaraguans). So it's hypocrisy at its ridiculousness.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Has there ever been a genetic study comparing lower-class Egyptians (aka baladi or fellahin) from their upper-class compatriots? ES veterans might remember an article by an Egyptian writer (I forgot his name, unfortunately) observing that lower-class Egyptians tend to have darker skin and more indigenous (African) cultural traits than the upper-class ones, and there is that old Lucotte paper comparing the frequency of certain haplogroups in Lower versus Upper Egypt, but I haven't seen a paper describing a significant genetic difference between Egyptians of different social strata. It would be interesting to see if, regardless of location, rural and lower-class Egyptians tend to have more indigenous African ancestry than the urban upper class.
I think we did at least several threads on the topic. There are more genetic differences between Egyptians of different regions than from different classes though even with this there are certain exceptions. I presume that Bohari (northern) Baladi communities that are somewhat insulated with almost no intermarriage with outsiders are genetically going to be more similar to Sa'idi Baladi who have similar traditions of social isolation. Also certain classes, mainly the upper crest Afrangi are not even Arab let alone Baladi but have family origins from Syria, Turkey, and even Circassian (Caucasus Mountains) even if they're Muslim like most Arab Egyptians. And or course the Greek Copts of Alexandria will differ from other Copts from more rural areas.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ It's called the hypocritical crybully phenomenon. You have North Africans like the Egyptians be appallingly racist to Africans from further south (even if its within their own country) but when they enter Europe and get called 'black' or 'darky' or worse, complain about white racism. It's similar to how in North America Mexicans complain about racism towards them and the phrase "dirty Mexican" or stereotypes about them being dumb or backwards while in Mexico it's not uncommon to hear derogatory talk about Hispanics from Central America being called names like "Guatemalteco sucio" (dirty Guatemalan) or "Nicas tontos" (dumb Nicaraguans). So it's hypocrisy at its ridiculousness.
That is indeed a thing, but I was thinking more in terms of the "white tears" phenomenon, which (as I understand it) is when someone from a relatively privileged group acts like a more disadvantaged group is somehow oppressing or discriminating against them. A Japanese person in Japan complaining about Koreans hating on Japanese people, when ethnic Japanese clearly occupy a dominant position over Koreans in that country, would be one example of this trend. The way Andumbass speaks about how Black people relate to North Africans, despite the well-documented phenomenon of anti-Blackness in Arabized North African communities, would be another.
That said, racism and ethnic chauvinism can and do travel in all directions. I don't think any form of those are OK, even if some groups arguably occupy a more advantaged position in their respective societies than others.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ It's called the hypocritical crybully phenomenon. You have North Africans like the Egyptians be appallingly racist to Africans from further south (even if its within their own country) but when they enter Europe and get called 'black' or 'darky' or worse, complain about white racism. It's similar to how in North America Mexicans complain about racism towards them and the phrase "dirty Mexican" or stereotypes about them being dumb or backwards while in Mexico it's not uncommon to hear derogatory talk about Hispanics from Central America being called names like "Guatemalteco sucio" (dirty Guatemalan) or "Nicas tontos" (dumb Nicaraguans). So it's hypocrisy at its ridiculousness.
That is indeed a thing, but I was thinking more in terms of the "white tears" phenomenon, which (as I understand it) is when someone from a relatively privileged group acts like a more disadvantaged group is somehow oppressing or discriminating against them. A Japanese person in Japan complaining about Koreans hating on Japanese people, when ethnic Japanese clearly occupy a dominant position over Koreans in that country, would be one example of this trend. The way Andumbass speaks about how Black people relate to North Africans, despite the well-documented phenomenon of anti-Blackness in Arabized North African communities, would be another.
That said, racism and ethnic chauvinism can and do travel in all directions. I don't think any form of those are OK, even if some groups arguably occupy a more advantaged position in their respective societies than others.
You talk as if racism wasn't universal. That there is anti-blackness in North Africa doesn't mean harassement and the afrocentric pov should be tolerated the latter being a clearly racist ideology.
Also I don't see how I'm supposed to be more "advantaged" than AAs or blacks in Europe ?? You're also clearly naive if you think an "arab" like me can't be victim of racism in SSA. Anyway my point wasn't to cry but to show that there is indeed harassement, obsession and racism unlike what many members here believe (about afrocentrists being a fringe minority and quiet group on the internet).
and this perfectly sum up my opinion :
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ This from the ignoramus who thinks every black/dark-skinned Egyptian is from "the Sudanese border" and then posts pictures of Afrangi claiming them to be indigenous! LOL
But getting back to the topic, I remember years back in university coming across info on ancient irrigation systems of West Africa used in the Niger River and its tributaries.
Here is some info on ancient irrigation systems of southern Africa:
ABSTRACT Lani van Vuuren describes how ancestors were closely attached with water with early southern African communities using irrigation technologies to manipulate water to survive and thrive in a harsh land. Irrigation technologies were practiced by Iron Age communities unearthed in southern Africa, which include the sites at Nyanga in eastern Zimbabwe, the Limpopo River catchment area, the Lowveld and the Drakensberg escarpment region of Mpumalanga and KwaZulu-Natal. The site contains numerous old aqueducts with some being 3,2 km or more in length, running from artificial-dams on the mountain streams, and crossing from hill-to-hill. The retaining walls of terraces were seldom more than 0,6 m and were built from stones that had been cleared when the lands were prepared. The best regional example of pre-colonial irrigation technology is to be found in the Nyanga district in the north-eastern part of Zimbabwe, where a veritable archaeological treasure trove was discovered.
In this context one must remember that not only white fringe groups are out there spreading false and misleading information. Also fringe groups among Black Americans are doing the same, but with Native Americans as victims.
There are actually some propagandists and pseudohistorians among Black Americans who do not want Native Americans to have their history in peace but who try to distort it and take credit for Native achievements.
Black pseudo historians spew a lot of rubbish about Black Olmecs and similar. Seems they are hellbent on trying to erase Native Americans out of history.
Here are a couple of earlier threads here on ES that adress how they try to spread misinformation about Native cultures and distort the past.
One can argue that these amateur pseudo historians are just a small fringe group, but still their propaganda have become annoying for some Native Americans who feel that they already lost everything to invaders and now their very history and connection to the continent they have lived on for thousands of years is questioned.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: In this context one must remember that not only white fringe groups are out there spreading false and misleading information. Also fringe groups among Black Americans are doing the same, but with Native Americans as victims.
There are actually some propagandists and pseudohistorians among Black Americans who do not want Native Americans to have their history in peace but who try to distort it and take credit for Native achievements.
Black pseudo historians spew a lot of rubbish about Black Olmecs and similar. Seems they are hellbent on trying to erase Native Americans out of history.
Here are a couple of earlier threads here on ES that adress how they try to spread misinformation about Native cultures and distort the past.
One can argue that these amateur pseudo historians are just a small fringe group, but still their propaganda have become annoying for some Native Americans who feel that they already lost everything to invaders and now their very history and connection to the continent they have lived on for thousands of years is questioned.
This is my contribution, pertaining American soil.
quote:Paying to Play Indian: The Dawes Rolls and the Legacy of $5 Indians
Paying a commissioner $5 could get an opportunistic white person on the Dawes Rolls 125 years ago, which still causes problems for tribes today.
It may be fashionable to play Indian now, but it was also trendy 125 years ago when people paid $5 apiece for falsified documents declaring them Native on the Dawes Rolls.
These so-called five-dollar Indians paid government agents under the table in order to reap the benefits that came with having Indian blood. Mainly white men with an appetite for land, five-dollar Indians paid to register on the Dawes Rolls, earning fraudulent enrollment in tribes along with benefits inherited by generations to come.
“These were opportunistic white men who wanted access to land or food rations,” said Gregory Smithers, associate professor of history at Virginia Commonwealth University. “These were people who were more than happy to exploit the Dawes Commission—and government agents, for $5, were willing to turn a blind eye to the graft and corruption.”
The Dawes Commission, established in 1893 to enforce the General Allotment Act of 1887 (or the Dawes Act), was charged with convincing tribes to cede their land to the United States and divide remaining land into individual allotments. The commission also required Indians to claim membership in only one tribe and register on the Dawes Rolls, what the government meant to be a definitive record of individuals with Indian blood.
The Curtis Act, passed in 1898, targeted the Five Civilized Tribes (Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek and Seminole), forcing them to accept allotments and register on the Dawes Rolls. The two acts—which came during a “period of murky social context” after the Civil War when white and black men were intermarrying with Native American women, aimed to help the government keep track of “real” Indians while accelerating efforts to assimilate Indian people into white culture, Smithers said.
“By 1865, African Americans and white Americans were moving into the Midwest, into the Indian and Oklahoma territories, all vying for some patch of land they could call their own and live out their Jeffersonian view of independence,” he said. “The federal government poured a lot of effort and energy into the Dawes Commission, but at the same time it was very hard for both Native and American governments to keep track of who was who.”
The Dawes Commission set up tents in Indian Territory, said Bill Welge, director emeritus of the Oklahoma Historical Society’s Office of American Indian Culture and Preservation. There, field clerks scoured written records, took oral testimony and generated enrollment cards for individuals determined to have Indian blood.
That included authentic Indians, Welge said. But it also included lots of people with questionable heritage.
“Commissioners took advantage of their positions and enrolled people who had very minimal or questionable connections to the tribes,” he said. “They were not adverse to taking money under the table.”
The Dawes Commission, established in 1893 to enforce the General Allotment Act of 1887 (or the Dawes Act), was charged with convincing tribes to cede their land to the United States and divide remaining land into individual allotments. The commission also required Indians to claim membership in only one tribe and register on the Dawes Rolls.
The implications of such shady practices are enormous now, Smithers said. Five-dollar Indians passed their unearned benefits to heirs who still lay claim to tribal citizenship and associated privileges.
“Now we have people who are white but who can trace their names back to the rolls used by tribal nations to ascertain who has rights as citizens,” he said. “That means we have white people who have the ability to vote at large; it means political rights; it means the potential to influence tribal policy on a whole range of issues; it means people have access to health care, education and employment. The implications are quite profound for people who got away with fraud.”
On the flip side, while non-Natives paid to play Indian, many authentic Indians who didn’t trust the government chose not to register with the Dawes Rolls at all, said Gene Norris, a genealogist at the Cherokee National Historical Society. That means people with legitimate claims to tribal enrollment and the benefits are now excluded.
“Native Americans are the only racial group defined by blood,” Norris said. “Even that was arbitrary. In the 1890s, siblings who talked to different commissioners emerged with different blood quantum. Because they didn’t apply together, some of them have different blood degrees.”
In short, the Dawes Rolls forever changed the way the federal government defined Indians—and, in many cases, the way Indians still define themselves.
In 1900, one woman registered on the rolls with 1/256 Cherokee blood, Norris said. Now, some enrolled members of the Cherokee Nation have as little as 1/8,196 Indian blood.
The Dawes Rolls—even now—are a murky and “very inaccurate” gauge of Indian citizenship, he said. In the 2000 Census, the number of people claiming Cherokee ancestry was three times that of official tribal enrollment.
“That’s what happens when the federal government established the rules, not the Natives,” he said.
Smithers has no estimate of the number of people who fraudulently registered on the Dawes Rolls—or who lay false claim to Indian citizenship now. But five-dollar Indians did not represent an isolated case of appropriation.
“What we had was simply white people claiming to be Indian,” he said. “They were early wannabes, just like we have today. Five-dollar Indian is just another term for that.”
Afrocentrism is known as Africana. It's clear you don't know what this curriculum is about. Africana has fought back against white supremacy and with that Eurocentrism. It has put African history in it's popper African context.
Of course you don't know this as an online babble box.
On that note, you are a bootlicker who is subjugated to Arabcentrism.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Yeah, there are both whites and blacks that "play indians" in one or another way. And fakes and cultural appropriation is rather common in many contexts.
I made the comment since the OP discussed some fringe white people claiming Great Zimbabwe as a White city (an old and outdated narrative descending from colonial times. It was rather popular during the time of the White rule in Zimbabwe, at that time called Rhodesia).
But as i mentioned also fringe groups of Blacks distort history and claim heritage that is not theirs. I have spoken with several Native Americans that see it as a sort of attack on their history and cultural integrity. It is perhaps fringe groups, but their activities still affect Native Americans, since they are already marginalized in the American society. The worst is when such narratives are sneaked into schools and even into academic papers. Children have difficulties to discern what is factual and what is just made up stuff, so it is rather imperative that such distortions not become a part of school curriculum.
Also some Native Americans are afraid that some American politicians would come to embrace such ideas which could in worst case scenarios affect political decisions concerning land rights and similar.
It is really a bit sad that also some Black people would resort to such fakehood, since Black people themselves often have been affected by it, as in the case of Great Zimbabwe. One can wonder why some of them would repeat the mistakes of history.
Great Zimbabwe in Zimbabwe, and La Venta in Mexico, both used by people who want to distort history.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Yeah, there are both whites and blacks that "play indians" in one or another way. And fakes and cultural appropriation is rather common in many contexts.
A few Black Americans claim Indian ancestry, and somehow that equates to 5 dollar white pretendians, who steal billions of dollars from actual Indians. lol ok dudeo ok.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I made the comment since the OP discussed some fringe white people claiming Great Zimbabwe as a White city (an old and outdated narrative descending from colonial times. It was rather popular during the time of the White rule in Zimbabwe, at that time called Rhodesia).
Whites violently took Zimbabwe and claimed all accomplishments, not just there but all over the globe. Of course it was illogical.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: But as i mentioned also fringe groups of Blacks distort history and claim heritage that is not theirs. I have spoken with several Native Americans that see it as a sort of attack on their history and cultural integrity. It is perhaps fringe groups, but their activities still affect Native Americans, since they are already marginalized in the American society. The worst is when such narratives are sneaked into schools and even into academic papers. Children have difficulties to discern what is factual and what is just made up stuff, so it is rather imperative that such distortions not become a part of school curriculum.
What you don't seem to grasp is that these Black peoples historically lineage was distorted. The lineage, history and language was cut off by laws. Do you have any idea what this means and what the impact of this has been on a people. As ridiculous as it is what some Black Americans claim, we can't blame them for these conditions.
I think a by fr bigger issue is the white pretentians who steal billions of dollars from the actual Indians.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Also some Native Americans are afraid that some American politicians would come to embrace such ideas which could in worst case scenarios affect political decisions concerning land rights and similar.
It is really a bit sad that also some Black people would resort to such fakehood, since Black people themselves often have been affected by it, as in the case of Great Zimbabwe. One can wonder why some of them would repeat the mistakes of history.
Great Zimbabwe in Zimbabwe, and La Venta in Mexico, both used by people who want to distort history.
This is a nonsense comparison. One group violently took a land and claimed the history and accomplishments of that land.
The other was expounded by Europeans, where they claimed it was originally by Africas. It was not Black people who created this narrative. But as always Black should be blamed. Go focus on the white men who started with this narrative.
You are good at one thing and this is altering narratives aka lying.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ The white-washing of North Africa is much easier not only due to the longer tradition of it but also certain bio-anthropological traits of North Africans that make it easier to align them with Eurasians. But after North Africa comes the Horn, and after that comes the rest of East Africa as shown in Gayre's thesis which leads to Zimbabwe.
Let's not forget the paper that came out a couple years back on Khoisan having "Eurasian" ancestry. So Sub-Sahara is not off limits to white-washing.
Both whites and blacks should stop obsessing over our regions. North africans are predominantly eurasian since the upper paleolithic and horners are between 40-50% eurasian; such type of ancestry is also found in the rest of east africa albeit in lower proportion.
15kya Morocco, Taforalt is E1b1b
That was equal to an uppercut. Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: @zaharan Why do you purposely omit the fact they explicitly claim those civilisations ? And you think I'll spam hundreds of pictures ? You maybe need something like this ? :
Like I said you can check any photo of artifacts from ancient or medieval north africa and you'll see comments like this :
Can you explain why this art-form looks so different from all the other art-forms that came before, during that dynasty and even after?
What exactly happened?
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote: Originally posted by Ish Geber: A few Black Americans claim Indian ancestry, and somehow that equates to 5 dollar white pretendians, who steal billions of dollars from actual Indians. lol ok dudeo ok.
What you don't seem to grasp is that these Black peoples historically lineage was distorted. The lineage, history and language was cut off by laws. Do you have any idea what this means and what the impact of this has been on a people. As ridiculous as it is what some Black Americans claim, we can't blame them for these conditions.
I think a by fr bigger issue is the white pretentians who steal billions of dollars from the actual Indians. ----- This is a nonsense comparison. One group violently took a land and claimed the history and accomplishments of that land.
The other was expounded by Europeans, where they claimed it was originally by Africas. It was not Black people who created this narrative. But as always Black should be blamed. Go focus on the white men who started with this narrative.
You are good at one thing and this is altering narratives aka lying.
Obviously some Native Americans see it as a problem having their history distorted, whatever you think of it. Seems you are overly sensitive to any criticism of Black people, you always have something to complain about. Seems you see Black Americans as some kind of innocent victims who are so traumatized by past events that some of them can not think clearly, and just loose themselves in all kind of fantasies.
The comparison is valid even if intention and impact was different. But fakery is fakery whether whites or blacks are behind it. And as I said, if some Native Americans are worried about it, it is a problem for them. Remember that also Native Americans have a rather traumatic history behind them, which can increase their suspicion about people from other groups trying to hijack their past.
And in todays world Zimbabwe is not a colony anymore so one can instead compare with the fringe white groups that still claim that Zimbabwe was a white civilisation.
And yes white pretendians is also a problem, but one can actually adress more than one problem at the same time.
Native Americans have many problems and this is just one of them, but still it is a nuisance to some of them.
Native Americans are a small and often marginalized group. So it is weird that the producers of the fakery target them. Better they claim European culture which probably is not seen as some threat by most Europeans.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Fortunately also some African Americans are getting tired of the fakery and pseudo history and react against it. Maybe that has a greater impact than if the criticism comes from white people or Native Americans.
Some of the proponents of the fakery are obviously somewhat disturbed, but others like Greg Wiggan, a well educated man who tried to sneak in the Black Olmec narrative into an academic paper ought to know better.
Greg Wiggan Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Here is some Academics discussing the perpetuation of fake history.
This podcast made by a historian and an archaeologists with Native background also adresses the problem. Among others the retracted article by Greg Wiggan (who conveys the Black Olmec narrative) in an Academic Journal is discussed.
Tales From Aztlantis Episode 6: Hijacking History (The Problem With The “Black Olmec” Myth) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxJCxZt-cwQ Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Obviously some Native Americans see it as a problem having their history distorted, whatever you think of it.
Black Americans always have been critical of the 5 dollar white pretendians. They way have called out the lie that Christopher Columbusis the founder of America. So yeah. I agree here.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Seems you are overly sensitive to any criticism of Black people, you always have something to complain about. Seems you see Black Americans as some kind of innocent victims who are so traumatized by past events that some of them can not think clearly, and just loose themselves in all kind of fantasies.
What criticism are you talking about when it pertains Black people?
Black Americans are traumatized victims, it's not what I seem to think. It's a historical well documented fact! So yeah, there is a lot to complain about. What do you think would happen to a people being subjected to racism and injustices generation after generation?
quote:Consequently, the Black community, in particular, is at significantly increased risk of developing a mental health issue due to historical, economic, social, political influences that systemically expose the Black community to factors known to be damaging to psychological and physical health. Research consistently shows that these disparities are not a new phenomenon and have been present for generations. Historically, the Black community was and continues to be disadvantaged in mental health through subjection to trauma through enslavement, oppression, colonialism, racism, and segregation. A growing body of research suggests that traumatic experiences can cause profound biological changes in the person experiencing the traumatic event. Cutting edge researchers are also beginning to understand how these physiological changes are genetically encoded and passed down to future generations. These findings suggest that in addition to the cultural and psychological inheritance of trauma, intergenerational trauma may be passed down biologically from one generation to the next.
quote:"American jurisprudence and law have profoundly shaped, defined, and constrained the lives of Black people for over 400 years. Racial inequality has extremely deep roots in American society, and our Constitution, statutes, court cases, and regulations not only bear witness to this, but are often the source of it Black Americans and the LawBlack American timeline provides an overview of some of these laws, beginning with the first known case marking the legal difference between Africans and Europeans in 1640 in Virginia, and continuing with laws recently introduced in the wake of the killing of George Floyd and other Black Americans. While not exhaustive, the timeline focuses on a number of key legal events and actions that have structured and systematized racism in America".
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: The comparison is valid even if intention and impact was different. But fakery is fakery whether whites or blacks are behind it. And as I said, if some Native Americans are worried about it, it is a problem for them. Remember that also Native Americans have a rather traumatic history behind them, which can increase their suspicion about people from other groups trying to hijack their past.
What comparisons are you talking about and what is supposedly fair about what?
Show me the images and articles of these Native Americans you are talking about.
Lastly, Black people are behind what fakery exactly?
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: And in todays world Zimbabwe is not a colony anymore so one can instead compare with the fringe white groups that still claim that Zimbabwe was a white civilisation.
Why are you comparing Zimbabwe with what is going on in America with Black Americans? Black Americans who have been in America for over 400 years. Black Americans have only one place to compare and this is the place they have been instrumental in building for hundreds of years. Most Black Americans by far never claimed that they have origin in the Americas. Of course you don't know this since you don't know any Black Americans. You only know them from online social media outlets.
The old civilization of Zimbabwe was already there long before and pasty people entered that region.
One deals with some people online making claims, while the other dealt with white people in scholarship creating false narratives attempting to steal a history that clearly was not theirs to do.
How do you even come up to mash these two together?
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: And yes white pretendians is also a problem, but one can actually adress more than one problem at the same time.
What other problem are you talking about? Some individuals who claim to have been in the Americas for thousands of years? It's probably something like 1% who claim this. Some indeed have admixture as well. As is documented by historical events.
There are well known Americans who had mixture of both Native American and African.
The First Census of the United States (1790).
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Native Americans have many problems and this is just one of them, but still it is a nuisance to some of them.
Nobody here is saying Native Americans have no problems. I acknowledged that the biggest problem, the elephant in the room is the 5 dollar white pretendians who steal billions of dollars from the actual Indians. If this problem is solved it means all these billions can be streamlined to the actual Indians.
My suggestion to you is, go invest time into dismantling the 5 dollar white pretendians who steal billions of dollars from the actual Indians.
That willl solve 99% of Native American problems.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Native Americans are a small and often marginalized group.
Yes, Native Americans are a small and often marginalized group. How many Native Americans are there in total (without the white 5 dollar pretendians)?
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: So it is weird that the producers of the fakery target them. Better they claim European culture which probably is not seen as some threat by most Europeans.
Not sure what you mean, perhaps you can elaborate?
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Fortunately also some African Americans are getting tired of the fakery and pseudo history and react against it. Maybe that has a greater impact than if the criticism comes from white people or Native Americans.
Some of the proponents of the fakery are obviously somewhat disturbed, but others like Greg Wiggan, a well educated man who tried to sneak in the Black Olmec narrative into an academic paper ought to know better.
Some? The vast MAJORITY of Black Americans reject the notion to always have been native to the Americas as Indians. It's clear you have no idea what you are talking about.
But who made these? Was it Black Americans? I ask so, to understand the correlation to the 5 dollar pretendians.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Here is some Academics discussing the perpetuation of fake history.
This podcast made by a historian and an archaeologists with Native background also adresses the problem. Among others the retracted article by Greg Wiggan (who conveys the Black Olmec narrative) in an Academic Journal is discussed.
Whites wrote this and somehow it's "Afrocentric"? Sir ma'am, it, you have mental issues.
Dr. Wiercinski (1972) claims that the some of the Olmecs were of African origin.
quote:The last detailed discussions and critiques of this general idea (J. Comas, 1972, 1973) bolstered my anthropological findings (A. Wiercinski, 1974) particularly in regard to the presence of Negroid components among Olmec groups. In Almogaren III, Z. Krzak (1972: The problem of reconstruc ting an Afro-Iberian Ship from the Neolithic Age) proved the possibility of sufficient megalithic navigational skill to allow for the voyages necessary to establish the validity of the hypothesis.
quote:It is strange that some people still believe that all the Negroid images in this book were “accidental” creations of the American “Indians.” A severe blow to this erroneous belief was given during the XLI International Congress of Americanists in Mexico (September 1974) by Andrzej Wiercinski, the well-known craniologist from the University of Warsaw. Dr. Wiercinski was kind enough to lend me the manuscript of his contribution to the Congress, which I included in my paper also read at the Congress. Wiercinski says:
It appeared that some of the skulls from Tlatilco, Cerro de las Mesas and Monte Alban (all pre-Classic sites in Mexico) show, to a different degree, a clear prevalence of the total Negroid pattern that has been evidenced by the use of two methods: a) multivariate distance analysis of average characteristics of individual fractions distinguished cranioscopically; b) analysis of frequency distributions of Mean Index of the position between combinations of racial varieties.
(Alexander von Wuthenau, Unexpected Faces In Ancient America The Historical Testimony Of Pre Columbian Artists 1500 B C A D 1500)
quote:To commemorate Mexico’s assistance to Ethiopia during its occupation by Italy; Ethiopia named a center square in Addis Ababa “Mexico Square”. In 2010, the Mexican government donated a replica of an Olmec colossal head to Ethiopia where it was placed in Mexico Square. On the 22nd of June, 1954, a traffic circle in Mexico City was named “Plaza Etiopía”, under which in August 1980, a metro station in Mexico City was built and named Metro Etiopía
Indeed it was whites who started the narrative. Blacks just followed suit. But note that this theory of African origins was based solely on facial features.
Gee, this sounds awfully familiar...
It sounds a lot like the theory that Egyptians were white/caucasoids based on their facial features.
It comes to show you can't judge a peoples' ancestry by their features alone.
Posted by Tehutimes (Member # 21712) on :
"Phony Pandemic"? I find much cultural/historical information on this site yet you say COVID-19 is not a real disease? Mask wearing & vaccinations are just for entertainment purposes.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Some? [Big Grin] The vast MAJORITY of Black Americans reject the notion to always have been native to the Americas as Indians. [Roll Eyes] It's clear you have no idea what you are talking about. [Cool]
But who made these? Was it Black Americans? I ask so, to understand the correlation to the 5 dollar pretendians
Well, some claim that their ancestors always been in America, others claim that Africans (Egyptians, Nubians, West Africans) came to the Americas in precolumbian times and built civilisations like the Olmec, the Maya, Aztec, Moundbuilder, Inca and so on. There are some different versions. I have followed some of the discussions about this for a couple of years now and I heard the most hilarious statements, whereof some are promoted rather aggressively.
I can later make a list of some books and videos where such claims are promoted.
So enough many make the claims for it to be considered as a nuisance by some Native Americans, they feel that they already lost so much after 500 years of genocide and land theft and now some people also try to steal their history. Maybe you can not understand their frustration since you prefer to excuse black people because they have had traumatic experiences in the past. But guess what, so have Native Americans.
I have no number on exactly how many black Americans who reject the historical distortions or how many promotes it, especially in public, I do not know if anyone have made some research about it yet.
quote:Black Americans are traumatized victims, it's not what I seem to think. It's a historical well documented fact! So yeah, there is a lot to complain about. What do you think would happen to a people being subjected to racism and injustices generation after generation?
But they are still grown up people, and it is no excuse for trying to appropriate another peoples history, or try to take credit for their achievements. It is no excuse for spreading false information and pure lies in books, articles, on social media or in other ways, or trying to infiltrate schools with the nonsense. It is no excuse for poaching on a smaller, also traumatized minorities cultural heritage.
quote:What comparisons are you talking about and what is supposedly fair about what?
Show me the images and articles of these Native Americans you are talking about.
Lastly, Black people are behind what fakery exactly?
I talked about the comparison you rejected, between white fringe groups claiming Great Zimbabwe as a white civilisation and some Black fringe groups claiming the Olmecs as a black civilisation.
I know that the ideas of a white Great Zimbabwe and white Egyptians and similar ideas first rose in a colonialist context, but that does not make it OK for some African Americans to mimic similar ideas and denying others their history.
The fakery is when black people claim that they are the original Native Americans, or that Africans came to America and created several of its cultures and civilisation. Fakery is when some people claim that the Olmecs used Mande language in their inscriptions. Fakery is when some claim that the Bonampak murals depict Africans, or that Africans taught Native Americans to build pyramids, or that Cahokia was built by black/African people, just to take a few examples.
I have participated in online communities, and also had other forms of communcation, with Native Americans for some years now, and I have been member of online groups specially dedicated to refute the false narratives about ancient Native American cultures that are spread by the fringe groups, and which is promoted in social media, in books, videos and other ways. I have also debated directly with some of the proponents for these theories.
quote:What other problem are you talking about? Some individuals who claim to have been in the Americas for thousands of years? It's probably something like 1% who claim this. Some indeed have admixture as well. As is documented by historical events.
You seem to have difficulties in understanding what I write. You talk about the white pretendians, and it is a problem. And some Black groups wanting to distort Native American history is another problem. And that some of those African Americans want to sneak such narratives into school curricula is another problem.
And I do not talk about mixed people, it is a well known fact that Native Americans and Black people have mixed for centuries. I talk about those who claim that Blacks (Africans, or "original" black people) built the ancient Native American cultures in precolumbian times, or those who say that Native Americans are recently arrived, Siberian or mongolian Invaders. Some even claim that most Native Americans descend from Asians who were imported by the whites to replace the original black peoples, so they (the black people) could be used as slaves. There are many fringe ideas out there, and some Native Americans take offense about some of those ideas.
It is maybe 1% of Black Americans who claim such a thing, but they are rather active spreading their messages. Especially on social media, but also through books. I even seen examples of childrens books where those kinds of messages are spread.
You always come back to the 5 dollar Indians. They are a problem, but those blacks who want to distort Native history is also considered a problem. There are Native Americans that are afraid that those ideas will spread, infiltrate the school system, or vorse influence politicians, which could have an impact on Native life (concerning land rights and similar). Maybe some of the worries are exaggerated, but Native Americans have been badly treated through history so some of them gets very supicious when other groups starts to talk about that they (the Natives) are not the original Americans, and that Black people have more right to their land.
quote: Whites wrote this and somehow it's "Afrocentric"? [Big Grin] Sir ma'am, it, you have mental issues.
I did not write Haslip Vieras book. I did not make the podcast. If you don´t like their vocabulary I suppose you can take it up with them.
I do not know if you listened to the podcast, it is interesting and it explains some of the problems with historical distortions.
One can also add that some of the worst fringe types now and then post stuff that upset Native Americans more than usual, and native Americans have even received threats online and sometimes in telephone. Seems the fringe movement attract one or another not so stable person. Here is just an example of how toxic some of them can be. I have seen worse. Some of it is probably trolling, but it still upsets, and it is rather consistent. If you had followed these discussions some time you would see some examples of rather bad behaviour.
Fortunately some people trying to refute some of the crazy claims. Also African Americans like this young man:
Here is one Facebook page created by a Native American which adresses the Black Olmec myth. In some way the Olmecs has come to be a kind of symbol for much of the claims and speculations that are promoted in books,articles, pods, videos and social media, and sometimes even in school curricula.
One can add that it sometimes seems like everyone wants a piece of the Native American cake, since so many claim that their ancestors (or some other preferred group) visited the Americas in precolumbian times, teaching the Natives all kinds of cultural traits, like writing or building pyramids.
It is not only Black people who make speculations about other peoples predating Native Americas, which the debates about the Solutrean hypothesis or the Kennewick man show. Some white fringe groups have used such speculations to claim that whites were first in the Americas.
Even if the problem with fringe groups trying to enchroach on Native American history is not a big problem for you (or many others who do not care about such issues), it still is a problem for some Natives. They see it as just another way for other groups to further marginalize them.
It is also funny that some Black pople get upset if non blacks claim the Egyptians where light skinned, or react negatively if someone claim that North Africans always been light skinned. One can even see such discussions here on ES.
At least Native Americans live in the land where some of the fakery is produced, while most black Americans do not live in Egypt, and many have perhaps not even visited Egypt or know any Egyptians.
For you the Black fringe groups that claim Native American history in different ways are perhaps not a problem, but for some Native Americans it is. And in the end it is what matters.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tehutimes: "Phony Pandemic"? I find much cultural/historical information on this site yet you say COVID-19 is not a real disease? Mask wearing & vaccinations are just for entertainment purposes.
The pandemic was real enough. What was the phony was the over-exaggerated danger of it. It was used to push masks and vaccines for nefarious reasons.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
It sounds a lot like the theory that Egyptians were white/caucasoids based on their facial features.
It comes to show you can't judge a peoples' ancestry by their features alone.
funny because you acknowledge the fact they were craniometrically distinct from 90% of Sub-saharan africa, you don't have their genetic results except the abusir samples and two samples found in lebanon and yet you imply they were "black". May I ask you based on what are you claiming this ?
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Indeed it was whites who started the narrative. Blacks just followed suit. But note that this theory of African origins was based solely on facial features.
Gee, this sounds awfully familiar...
It sounds a lot like the theory that Egyptians were white/caucasoids based on their facial features.
It comes to show you can't judge a peoples' ancestry by their features alone.
You are right.
In Mexico Black people have been recognized as a group, only a few years ago.
José Vasconcelos - the Cosmic Race / La raza cosmica (Race in the Americas) is very telling.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
It sounds a lot like the theory that Egyptians were white/caucasoids based on their facial features.
It comes to show you can't judge a peoples' ancestry by their features alone.
funny because you acknowledge the fact they were craniometrically distinct from 90% of Sub-saharan africa, you don't have their genetic results except the abusir samples and two samples found in lebanon and yet you imply they were "black". May I ask you based on what are you claiming this ?
Black people's (particularly in America) history, culture and identify was marginalized and destroyed. So in the end Black American who believe this can't be blamed. This is the part you don't get.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Black people's (particularly in America) history, culture and identify was marginalized and destroyed. So in the end Black American who believe this can't be blamed. This is the part you don't get. [/QB]
I actually totally get it but it still doesn't mean we should accept those fancy claims as factual. We're looking for the truth not something to appease our mental suffering.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Well, some claim that their ancestors always been in America, others claim that Africans (Egyptians, Nubians, West Africans) came to the Americas in precolumbian times and built civilisations like the Olmec, the Maya, Aztec, Moundbuilder, Inca and so on. There are some different versions. I have followed some of the discussions about this for a couple of years now and I heard the most hilarious statements, whereof some are promoted rather aggressively.
Indeed some, some online. As if that is significant. You need to seek a hobby, other than this. There's people who claim they came from other space as well.
Most of these people in these spaces do not even show their face. You are obsessed with stupidity.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I can later make a list of some books and videos where such claims are promoted.
Anyone can write and publish a book. That's not special. smh
Start making a list of the billions of dollars being stolen from the actual Native Americans, by these pretentdians.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: So enough many make the claims for it to be considered as a nuisance by some Native Americans, they feel that they already lost so much after 500 years of genocide and land theft and now some people also try to steal their history. Maybe you can not understand their frustration since you prefer to excuse black people because they have had traumatic experiences in the past. But guess what, so have Native Americans.
I have not heard Native Americans say this about Black Americas. But I can show you frustrated Native Americans over 5 dollar pretendians, who steal billions of dollars annually. I can understand how traumatic that has to be. They have stolen this identity for over 100 years.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I have no number on exactly how many black Americans who reject the historical distortions or how many promotes it, especially in public, I do not know if anyone have made some research about it yet.
So basically you don't know nothing about Black Americans.
For someone to be concerned as you claim that is a very odd answer. Especially because you have claimed to have communicated with Native Americans about their conditions.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: But they are still grown up people, and it is no excuse for trying to appropriate another peoples history, or try to take credit for their achievements. It is no excuse for spreading false information and pure lies in books, articles, on social media or in other ways, or trying to infiltrate schools with the nonsense. It is no excuse for poaching on a smaller, also traumatized minorities cultural heritage.
You don't no nothing about Black Americans and American history, the American curriculum and school text books. You are talking out of your nasty behind, that's all!
What these people are saying is that there was Native Americans who had dark skin like in the images I have shown. They claim to have mixed with them and have both ancestries. Others are all out and say they're not from Africa at all. Most of these people are scared to do a DNA test. So I don't take them serious at all. It's rather comical.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: You seem to have difficulties in understanding what I write. You talk about the white pretendians, and it is a problem. And some Black groups wanting to distort Native American history is another problem.
I talk about white pretendians because the steal billions of dollars.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: And that some of those African Americans want to sneak such narratives into school curricula is another problem.
Do you even know who writes the school text book curriculums? lol smh
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: And I do not talk about mixed people, it is a well known fact that Native Americans and Black people have mixed for centuries. I talk about those who claim that Blacks (Africans, or "original" black people) built the ancient Native American cultures in precolumbian times, or those who say that Native Americans are recently arrived, Siberian or mongolian Invaders. Some even claim that most Native Americans descend from Asians who were imported by the whites to replace the original black peoples, so they (the black people) could be used as slaves. There are many fringe ideas out there, and some Native Americans take offense about some of those ideas.
These Native American African mixed people became instrumental in American history and why some Black Americans claim part of this identity.
Most Black Americans do not even claim anything about the pre-Columbian era, or other weird conspiracy stuff. You are delusional. It's only a few people online who say these things. It's a nothing burger!
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: It is maybe 1% of Black Americans who claim such a thing, but they are rather active spreading their messages. Especially on social media, but also through books. I even seen examples of childrens books where those kinds of messages are spread.
Really? What is active to you? On social media? ok. smh
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: You always come back to the 5 dollar Indians. They are a problem, but those blacks who want to distort Native history is also considered a problem. There are Native Americans that are afraid that those ideas will spread, infiltrate the school system, or vorse influence politicians, which could have an impact on Native life (concerning land rights and similar). Maybe some of the worries are exaggerated, but Native Americans have been badly treated through history so some of them gets very supicious when other groups starts to talk about that they (the Natives) are not the original Americans, and that Black people have more right to their land.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I did not write Haslip Vieras book. I did not make the podcast. If you don´t like their vocabulary I suppose you can take it up with them.
When and where did I say you do and did?
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I do not know if you listened to the podcast, it is interesting and it explains some of the problems with historical distortions.
Yes, I do listen to podcasts. But only productive stuff such as IT, actual historians etc, not some pseudo intellectuals.
There's all types of conspiracy theorist, All over the world. I am not going to spend time listen to that.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: One can also add that some of the worst fringe types now and then post stuff that upset Native Americans more than usual, and native Americans have even received threats online and sometimes in telephone. Seems the fringe movement attract one or another not so stable person. Here is just an example of how toxic some of them can be. I have seen worse. Some of it is probably trolling, but it still upsets, and it is rather consistent. If you had followed these discussions some time you would see some examples of rather bad behaviour.
Are you talking about the dawes rolls 5 dollar indian white pretendians?
Bobby Hemmitt has not been on social media as an active known member for over 10 years. Please stop it!
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Fortunately some people trying to refute some of the crazy claims. Also African Americans like this young man:
Here is one Facebook page created by a Native American which adresses the Black Olmec myth. In some way the Olmecs has come to be a kind of symbol for much of the claims and speculations that are promoted in books,articles, pods, videos and social media, and sometimes even in school curricula.
One can add that it sometimes seems like everyone wants a piece of the Native American cake, since so many claim that their ancestors (or some other preferred group) visited the Americas in precolumbian times, teaching the Natives all kinds of cultural traits, like writing or building pyramids.
I already addressed this, but for some reason you are slow and do not understand that it was WHITES who started this narrative. What you do is called a circular argument. You've created your own argument and keep posting sources to emphasize this argument. It leads to nowhere, because Black Americans didn't start this.
No normal functioning Black Americans are taking these people serious. This tells something about you as well. lol
Indians Exposed123: "#SisterBethy Year in Review Ep8, #SisterBethy still showing fake ancestry HAPPY NEW YEAR #2022"
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: It is not only Black people who make speculations about other peoples predating Native Americas, which the debates about the Solutrean hypothesis or the Kennewick man show. Some white fringe groups have used such speculations to claim that whites were first in the Americas.
Even if the problem with fringe groups trying to enchroach on Native American history is not a big problem for you (or many others who do not care about such issues), it still is a problem for some Natives. They see it as just another way for other groups to further marginalize them.
It is also funny that some Black pople get upset if non blacks claim the Egyptians where light skinned, or react negatively if someone claim that North Africans always been light skinned. One can even see such discussions here on ES.
At least Native Americans live in the land where some of the fakery is produced, while most black Americans do not live in Egypt, and many have perhaps not even visited Egypt or know any Egyptians.
For you the Black fringe groups that claim Native American history in different ways are perhaps not a problem, but for some Native Americans it is. And in the end it is what matters.
There always have been people who speculate over historical events. This is nothing new and will always exists.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Black people's (particularly in America) history, culture and identify was marginalized and destroyed. So in the end Black American who believe this can't be blamed. This is the part you don't get.
I actually totally get it but it still doesn't mean we should accept those fancy claims as factual. We're looking for the truth not something to appease our mental suffering.
You don't get it that's the problem. When people have no reference to an identity they seek for things that look like what possible be their identity.
Black Americans didnt cause this confusion, it was "white Americans".
You don't understand half of the story and what happened in American history with the census reports etc. This is why you come with these superimposed arguments when it comes to Black Americans.
Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
What's funny is Native being dark skin means the offspring should be closer to the people at the bottom of the second pic or closer to the little girl,with the biggest visible difference being the form of the head so it's disturbing when some Black who look more African are dismissed as being Native.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: You don't get it that's the problem. When people have no reference to an identity they seek for things that look like what possible be their identity.
Black Americans didnt cause this confusion, it was "white Americans".
You don't understand half of the story and what happened in American history with the census reports etc. [/QB]
They should then naturally look at the land of their west african ancestors instead of appropriating the history of unrelated populations in order for them to feel better about themselves.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: What's funny is Native being dark skin means the offspring should be closer to the people at the bottom of the second pic or closer to the little girl,with the biggest visible difference being the form of the head so it's disturbing when some Black who look more African are dismissed as being Native.
Yes, that's the entire point. And that is what makes the claim with these white 5 dollar pretendians so obscure. It's a money grab scam.
But who made these? Was it Black Americans? I ask so, to understand the correlation to the 5 dollar pretendians.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: What's funny is Native being dark skin means the offspring should be closer to the people at the bottom of the second pic or closer to the little girl,with the biggest visible difference being the form of the head so it's disturbing when some Black who look more African are dismissed as being Native.
Why can't you just get rid of your racist and simplistic black/white labels ? Both europeans and west africans have nothing to do with native americans. Let these people in peace you literally harass 3/4 of the planet because of your complexes and lack of identity.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: You don't get it that's the problem. When people have no reference to an identity they seek for things that look like what possible be their identity.
Black Americans didnt cause this confusion, it was "white Americans".
You don't understand half of the story and what happened in American history with the census reports etc.
They should then naturally look at the land of their west african ancestors instead of appropriating the history of unrelated populations in order for them to feel better about themselves.
What land in West Africa dummy? And why should they leave a land they've been at for over 400 years. A country they set the foundation for and built.
Not only are you a simple mind, you are also a dumbass!
quote:Enslaved Labor and the Construction of the U.S. Capitol
“Would it be superstitious to presume, that the Sovereign Father of all nations, permitted the perpetration of this apparently execrable transaction, as a fiery, though salutary signal of his displeasure at the conduct of his Columbian children, in erecting and idolizing this… temple of freedom, and at the same time oppressing with the yoke of captivity and toilsome bondage, twelve or fifteen hundred thousand of their African brethren…making merchandize of their blood, and dragging their bodies with iron chains, even under its towering walls?” -Jesse Torrey, 1815
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: You don't get it that's the problem. When people have no reference to an identity they seek for things that look like what possible be their identity.
Black Americans didnt cause this confusion, it was "white Americans".
You don't understand half of the story and what happened in American history with the census reports etc.
They should then naturally look at the land of their west african ancestors instead of appropriating the history of unrelated populations in order for them to feel better about themselves.
What land in West Africa dummy? And why should to leave a land they've been at for over 400 years. A country they set the foundation for and built.
Not only are you a simple mind, you are also a dumbass!
I think we both agree that studying the history and cultures of West Africa would make more sense for them than obsessing over Egypt or the Near East. And yes afro-americans can rightfully feels american but still they don't have to claim 3/4 of civilizations on this planet. They descend from west african slaves and also have around 20% of west european ancestry that's it. They are not native americans, moors, egyptians, numidians, carthaginians, israelites, indians, mesopotamians, persians, phoenicians, etruscans, etc
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: What's funny is Native being dark skin means the offspring should be closer to the people at the bottom of the second pic or closer to the little girl,with the biggest visible difference being the form of the head so it's disturbing when some Black who look more African are dismissed as being Native.
Why can't you just get rid of your racist and simplistic black/white labels ? Both europeans and west africans have nothing to do with native americans. Let these people in peace you literally harass 3/4 of the planet because of your complexes and lack of identity.
Black Americans aren't West Africans, Black Americans are Black Americans. They've been so for over 400 years. America is where their history is at. And it was whites who created these labels, not Black Americans. Having West Africans ancestry and being a West African are two different things. Black Americans have Black American culture.
quote:“When the immigrant from Eastern Europe meets the Negro in New York,” Dr. W. E. B. Du Bois told us, “he is curious. He has never before seen a colored man; he therefore gazes at him as something new and novel. In his next step, through the process of Americanization, the immigrant will be told to avoid the Negroes, not to have any dealings with them, etc., etc. and later the final step, he will unconsciously begin to absorb the current prejudices against Negroes.” […]
The Martyrdom Of The Negro
“But before the immigrant goes any further, he should be stopped and warned. The millions of Negroes in America represent the exploited and persecuted group, just as these wanderers from Russia and Poland and Romania represent that of their countries. And the persecuted group gets little chance to be understood by the foreigner. The press, society, all the domineering forces of the state are against it” — and for the first time in our conversation the Doctor’s brown eyes flamed up.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: You don't get it that's the problem. When people have no reference to an identity they seek for things that look like what possible be their identity.
Black Americans didnt cause this confusion, it was "white Americans".
You don't understand half of the story and what happened in American history with the census reports etc.
They should then naturally look at the land of their west african ancestors instead of appropriating the history of unrelated populations in order for them to feel better about themselves.
What land in West Africa dummy? And why should to leave a land they've been at for over 400 years. A country they set the foundation for and built.
Not only are you a simple mind, you are also a dumbass!
I think we both agree that studying the history and cultures of West Africa would make more sense for them than obsessing over Egypt or the Near East.
And yes afro-americans can rightfully feels american but still they don't have to claim 3/4 of civilizations on this planet. They descend from west african slaves and also have around 20% of west european ancestry that's it. They are not native americans, moors, egyptians, numidians, carthaginians, israelites, indians, mesopotamians, persians, phoenicians, etruscans, etc
You keep arguing this circular babble.
The average Black American has no time for any of this stuff you are talking about. And the people who make these claims are flute minor group.
You create your own algorithm that's the issue you have.
And people can study whatever they want. Whites do it all the time all over the globe! If some Black Americans want to study the near East and Northeast Africa they have that right. You are not going to police Black people on what Black people can or cannot study and say! And you have no idea if Black Americans don't study West African history. You just say anything hoping it will stick on the wall.
Dr. Cassandra Newby-Alexander, The Carter G. Woodson Lecture Series:
There's hundreds of festivals like the above, you ignoramus. smh
quote: “African and Middle Eastern populations shared the greatest number of alleles absent from all other populations"
(fig. S6B).
(Sarah A. Tishkoff, The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans)
"Egypt, Bahariyya E-V22 score = 21,95%" (Verena J. Schuenemann et al., Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods)
“E-V22 accounts for 27.2% and its highest frequency appears to be among Fulani, but it is also common in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups.” (Hisham Y. Hassan, Peter A. Underhill, Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza, and Muntaser E. Ibrahim, Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History)
"E-V22 is mainly an eastern African sub-haplogroup, with frequencies of more than 80% in the Saho population from Eritrea, but it has also been reported in Egypt and Morocco" (Fulvio Cruciani, The peopling of the last Green Sahara revealed by high-coverage resequencing of trans-Saharan patrilineages)
"Saho, Eritrea (N=94) E-V22: score = 88.3% Turkana, Kenya (N=6) E-V22: score = 33.3% Gurage, Ethiopia (N=7) E-V22: score = 28.6%" (Trombetta et al., A New Topology of the Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup E1b1 (E-P2) Revealed through the Use of Newly Characterized Binary Polymorphisms)
"Gishimangeda Cave mt-DNA - HV1b1 y-DNA - E1b1b1a1b2; E-V22 Jawuoyo Rockshelter mt-DNA - L4b2a2c y-DNA - E1b1b1a1b2; E-V22" (Mary E. Prendergast, Ancient DNA Reveals a Multi-Step Spread of the First Herders into Sub-Saharan Africa)
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:You don't no nothing about Black Americans and American history, the American curriculum and school text books. You are talking out of your nasty behind, that's all! What these people are saying is that there was Native Americans who had dark skin like in the images I have shown. They claim to have mixed with them and have both ancestries. Others are all out and say they're not from Africa at all. Most of these people are scared to do a DNA test. So I don't take them serious at all. It's rather comical.
Well, I am no expert on Black Americans but I do not think they are children that are not responsible for what they say or do. If some are behaving in weird ways it is no more than right to pay attention to it, and debate them.
And I do not have to be an expert on American school curricula to understand that some Native Americans actually are worried that these ideas shall spread into the schools and maybe be taught, at least by some schools.It is their worry. You may not worry about it, but what is relevant is what they feel
And you do not seem to know much about Native Americans either or what they think about those who try to steal their cultural legacy. Seems you never talked with any Native Americans about these things.
It is not a matter about what you think about the peoples who claim that Blacks where there first, it is irrelevat what you think in this matter. The important is what Native Americans think. I talked with enough many who think it is a problem, and that is whats counts not what you think.
quote: Yes, I do listen to podcasts. But only productive stuff such as IT, actual historians etc, not some pseudo intellectuals. There's all types of conspiracy theorist, All over the world. I am not going to spend time listen to that.
Those who made the podcasts are actual schoolars, if you lsiten to the podcast you can see that one is an archaeologist and one is a historian. I think they know much more about these matters than you. If you listen on their podcast you might actually learn one or another thing.
quote:Bobby Hemmitt has not been on social media as an active known member for over 10 years. Please stop it!
As I said this is just one example of these crazy postings. And there are still groups which wear his name and which are dedicated to him on social media. I had interactions with some of the fringe types on groups with his name within the last two years. Most of the crazy stuff I seen are from the last years until now. Ten years ago I was not active concerning these issues. And the threats against Native Americans that I have been told about from Native Americans directly, in direct communication, was also made recently, not ten years ago..
Bobby Hemmitt, group on Facebook, latest post 20 minutes ago
quote: I already addressed this, but for some reason you are slow and do not understand that it was WHITES who started this narrative. What you do is called a circular argument. You've created your own argument and keep posting sources to emphasize this argument. It leads to nowhere, because Black Americans didn't start this.
It is totally irrelevant if whites started it. If some Blacks mimic these ideas it is on those Blacks. They could study and read literature about real history, both Native American history and their own factual history. To blame everything on the white man is disingenuous. Grown up people ought to be able to take responsibility for their own actions. One can not blame everything on the whites
quote: No normal functioning Black Americans are taking these people serious. This tells something about you as well. lol
Well, actually some Native Americans are actually being worried about the propaganda and lies those people spreads. That is what counts. If they feel that their culture is under attack we ought to respect their feelings and worries.
The phenomena obviously have existed for a while. Also academics of non Native and even African American background have reacted, already many years ago. They are not flimsy conspiracy theorists.
Gabriel Haslip Viera is an academic, not a conspiracy theorist. He wrote a whole book about the subject. I am sure he knows more about the impact of the false narrative on Native Americans than you do.
Already many years ago he wrote about these issues together with people like Bernard Ortiz de Montellano and Warren Barbour (African American archaeologist with precolumbian native culture as his field of study). Obviously they already at that time found the pseodo historic narrative about the alleged Black African Olmecs (and other alleged precolumbian cultures) troublesome.
And if you seriously are worried about the light skinned pretendians you always mention, you can start threads about them and discuss them on social media or other platforms.
Some words from a Native American
quote: Some say they don’t take these Afrocentric claims and activities serious, that they are akin to “Ancient Alien” fanatics. However, unlike Ancient Alien type fanatics, the Afrocentrics who hold these supremacist beliefs work with us in our social justice movements and education circles. Even our own Brown / so-called “Latinx” and Native people propagate this misinformation or are reluctant to confront it at the risk being called racist or “anti-black.” Many influential “conscious” music artists also espouse these false notions in their music.
If our Native youth were not struggling with violence, drug addiction, and suicide, which is directly tied to their history and identity then perhaps this Afrocentrism misinformation wave would not merit much concern. However, that is not the position we find ourselves in. The social struggles of Black & Brown/Native people overlap in almost all areas. To ignore this abuse of our ancestors’ legacy and not give it the proper attendance it deserves is to gamble with not only our Indigenous culture reclamation, community justice, and unity goals but that of of our Black African relatives as well. I don’t have all the answers but I do know it can and needs to be resolved in a firm but loving way.
You seem to have a problem seeing these matters being debated and paid attention to.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Black Americans aren't West Africans, Black Americans are Black Americans. They've been so for over 400 years. America is where their history is at. And it was whites who created these labels, not Black Americans. Having West Africans ancestry and being a West African are two different things. Black Americans have Black American culture.
They are not mutually exclusive you can be a black american with west african roots. 400 years is a short period of time historically and there is no reason to stop at this your history goes back thousands of years.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: You keep arguing this circular babble.
The average Black Americans has no time for any of this stuff you are talking about. And the people who make these claims are flute minor group.
You create your own algorithm that's the issue you have.
And people can study whatever they want. Whites do it all the time all over the globe! If some Black Americans want to study the near East and Northeast Africa they have that right. You are not going to police Black people on what Black people can or cannot study and say! And you have no idea if Black Americans don't study West African history. You just say anything hoping it will stick on the wall.
That's simply false most AAs are into afrocentrism and even the ones who aren't interested in history think ancient egyptians are their ancestors and were black. In all my life I've only seen a few serious and smart black individuals who weren't into this madness.
Yes you can study whatever you want but stop being such a hypocrite they don't do it simply for the sake of curiosity like most "whites" do.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber:
quote: “African and Middle Eastern populations shared the greatest number of alleles absent from all other populations"
(fig. S6B).
(Sarah A. Tishkoff, The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans)
"Egypt, Bahariyya E-V22 score = 21,95%" (Verena J. Schuenemann et al., Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods)
“E-V22 accounts for 27.2% and its highest frequency appears to be among Fulani, but it is also common in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups.” (Hisham Y. Hassan, Peter A. Underhill, Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza, and Muntaser E. Ibrahim, Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History)
"E-V22 is mainly an eastern African sub-haplogroup, with frequencies of more than 80% in the Saho population from Eritrea, but it has also been reported in Egypt and Morocco" (Fulvio Cruciani, The peopling of the last Green Sahara revealed by high-coverage resequencing of trans-Saharan patrilineages)
"Saho, Eritrea (N=94) E-V22: score = 88.3% Turkana, Kenya (N=6) E-V22: score = 33.3% Gurage, Ethiopia (N=7) E-V22: score = 28.6%" (Trombetta et al., A New Topology of the Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup E1b1 (E-P2) Revealed through the Use of Newly Characterized Binary Polymorphisms)
"Gishimangeda Cave mt-DNA - HV1b1 y-DNA - E1b1b1a1b2; E-V22 Jawuoyo Rockshelter mt-DNA - L4b2a2c y-DNA - E1b1b1a1b2; E-V22" (Mary E. Prendergast, Ancient DNA Reveals a Multi-Step Spread of the First Herders into Sub-Saharan Africa)
See ? That's another of your pathetic attempt at trying to find any small detail that can make you cling on those populations. You're clearly desesperate and try to find commonalities between you and distant populations you wish would "accept" you. Have some pride ffs
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: funny because you acknowledge the fact they were craniometrically distinct from 90% of Sub-saharan Africa,..
When and where?? You have a horrible habit of claiming I said things I never did. I've always maintained that Egyptians as North Africans are no more distinct in certain features from Sub-Saharans as they were to Eurasians. Which is why metrically they are intermediate between the two. Nonmetrically however, they group entirely with Sub-Saharans.
quote:you don't have their genetic results except the abusir samples and two samples found in lebanon and yet you imply they were "black". May I ask you based on what are you claiming this?
The Late Period Abusir samples from an area of Egypt known to have immigrant communities are far from accepted as being typical of indigenous Egyptians. That Egyptians are black is based on melanin dosages likening them to Sub-Saharans in terms of complexion. Not to mention again certain cranial traits traits as well body skeletal structure, HLA, HBS, paternal lineages and maternal lineages. What else is there? LOL Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Black people's (particularly in America) history, culture and identify was marginalized and destroyed. So in the end Black American who believe this can't be blamed. This is the part you don't get.
Ish, Antalass is just mad because the fallacy of "racial features" is busting his false claims! If features on ancient Indigenous Americans like broad noses and broad lips does not make them "negroid" then what are we to make of "caucasoid" features on Africans both North Africans and Southern Africans on the opposite pole of the continent? He is bankrupt.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: When and where?? You have a horrible habit of claiming I said things I never did. I've always maintained that Egyptians as North Africans are no more distinct in certain features from Sub-Saharans as they were to Eurasians. Which is why metrically they are intermediate between the two. Nonmetrically however, they group entirely with Sub-Saharans.
Sorry to contradict you here, but where did you read that AE group with stereotypically "sub-Saharan" (i.e. West or Central African) populations in nonmetric analyses? The Hanihara papers made it look like they and Kushites grouped with Europeans rather than SSA. Now, I personally don't interpret those results as showing that Egypto-Nubian populations were necessarily "Caucasoid" or "West Eurasian" (I don't think I need to go into how I personally interpret such results), but it wouldn't be right to say they grouped with West/Central African populations instead.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Well, I am no expert on Black Americans but I do not think they are children that are not responsible for what they say or do. If some are behaving in weird ways it is no more than right to pay attention to it, and debate them.
Of course you are no expert on Black America, that's obvious. Otherwise you would not hav said such much utter nonsense as you do. This has nothing to do with children and a child like mindset, this has to do with the detriment of a people for 400 years. It's something you can't grasp because you lack not only the IQ, but also the EQ (emotional intelligence).
You seem not to grasp that Black Americans historical lineage has been removed from what was before 400 years prior. So what they reconstruct is based on their surroundings. This is why some claim to be from America only, especially when their census from shows some Native American ancestor.
Black Americans didn't make it this complicated it was the racist American government. Can you grasp that? Yes, or no?
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: And I do not have to be an expert on American school curricula to understand that some Native Americans actually are worried that these ideas shall spread into the schools and maybe be taught, at least by some schools.It is their worry. You may not worry about it, but what is relevant is what they feel
Of course you have no knowledge on this, as you are just talking out of your ass.
Perhaps you should start with this?
quote: Pequot War, war fought in 1636–37 by the Pequot people against a coalition of English settlers from the Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut, and Saybrook colonies and their Native American allies (including the Narragansett and Mohegan) that eliminated the Pequot as an impediment to English colonization of southern New England. It was an especially brutal war and the first sustained conflict between Native Americans and Europeans in northeastern North America.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: And you do not seem to know much about Native Americans either or what they think about those who try to steal their cultural legacy. Seems you never talked with any Native Americans about these things.
I do know that the 5 dollar white predentians steal billions of dollars. All throughout this thread and other I have shown my concerns. So I have no idea what you are talking about with these false allegations
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: It is not a matter about what you think about the peoples who claim that Blacks where there first, it is irrelevat what you think in this matter. The important is what Native Americans think. I talked with enough many who think it is a problem, and that is whats counts not what you think.
Can you tell me how many tribes and which tribes have been annihilated and what the population size was of this massacre? Black Americans who claim these things say they are the descendants of these people. Can you prove them wrong?
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Those who made the podcasts are actual schoolars, if you lsiten to the podcast you can see that one is an archaeologist and one is a historian. I think they know much more about these matters than you. If you listen on their podcast you might actually learn one or another thing.
Give me a list of these people and the reputable degrees they have, and the fields they are in.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: As I said this is just one example of these crazy postings. And there are still groups which wear his name and which are dedicated to him on social media. I had interactions with some of the fringe types on groups with his name within the last two years. Most of the crazy stuff I seen are from the last years until now. Ten years ago I was not active concerning these issues. And the threats against Native Americans that I have been told about from Native Americans directly, in direct communication, was also made recently, not ten years ago..
Bobby Hemmitt, group on Facebook, latest post 20 minutes ago
Bobby Hemmit- group on Facebook .
Inserting, is Boddy making a comeback, is this the real Bobby or a trope?
But are these Black people wrong about the Dawes Rolls? It appears you don't understand how complex and complicated it has become with these governmental scams and massacres.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Well, actually some Native Americans are actually being worried about the propaganda and lies those people spreads. That is what counts. If they feel that their culture is under attack we ought to respect their feelings and worries.
The phenomena obviously have existed for a while. Also academics of non Native and even African American background have reacted, already many years ago. They are not flimsy conspiracy theorists.
Gabriel Haslip Viera is an academic, not a conspiracy theorist. He wrote a whole book about the subject. I am sure he knows more about the impact of the false narrative on Native Americans than you do.
Already many years ago he wrote about these issues together with people like Bernard Ortiz de Montellano and Warren Barbour (African American archaeologist with precolumbian native culture as his field of study). Obviously they already at that time found the pseodo historic narrative about the alleged Black African Olmecs (and other alleged precolumbian cultures) troublesome.
What part of IT WAS WHITE PEOPLE WHO STARTED THIS, DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano was of age to start an intellectual discourse with Carlos Cuervo Marqueze (1920), Carlo Marquez (1956, 179-80), Dr. Wiercinski (1972), Jairazbhoy, R.A. (1975), Pailles (1980), Von Wuthenau, Alexander. (1980), Cerro de las Mesas and Tlatilco. Morley, Brainerd and Sharer (1989), Diehl and Coe (1995), Poe (1997).
Van Sertima merely collected the data put forward by those who did primary work, but somehow Dr. Ivan Van Sertima is the problem?
You don't know how to analyze and put things in proper context.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: And if you seriously are worried about the light skinned pretendians you always mention, you can start threads about them and discuss them on social media or other platforms.
Ok cool, but who made these? Was it Black Americans? I ask so, to understand the correlation to the 5 dollar pretendians.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Some words from a Native American
quote: Some say they don’t take these Afrocentric claims and activities serious, that they are akin to “Ancient Alien” fanatics. However, unlike Ancient Alien type fanatics, the Afrocentrics who hold these supremacist beliefs work with us in our social justice movements and education circles. Even our own Brown / so-called “Latinx” and Native people propagate this misinformation or are reluctant to confront it at the risk being called racist or “anti-black.” Many influential “conscious” music artists also espouse these false notions in their music.
If our Native youth were not struggling with violence, drug addiction, and suicide, which is directly tied to their history and identity then perhaps this Afrocentrism misinformation wave would not merit much concern. However, that is not the position we find ourselves in. The social struggles of Black & Brown/Native people overlap in almost all areas. To ignore this abuse of our ancestors’ legacy and not give it the proper attendance it deserves is to gamble with not only our Indigenous culture reclamation, community justice, and unity goals but that of of our Black African relatives as well.
I don’t have all the answers but I do know it can and needs to be resolved in a firm but loving way.
Who is the author of this master piece. Show me the author of this master piece. Thanks in advance.
Ps. The author stated to have no idea to resolve the problems. Well, I do. Start with the 5 dollar pretendians, that will solve the core issues of Native Americas struggling with violence, drug addiction, and suicide All those billions should be relocated / located to the proper people. And these 5 dollar pretendians need to pay back all they have stolen included the inserts rate.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: You seem to have a problem seeing these matters being debated and paid attention to.
Why is it when the school curriculum IQ test asked who founded America, the correct answer was Columbus?
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Black Americans aren't West Africans, Black Americans are Black Americans. They've been so for over 400 years. America is where their history is at. And it was whites who created these labels, not Black Americans. Having West Africans ancestry and being a West African are two different things. Black Americans have Black American culture.
They are not mutually exclusive you can be a black american with west african roots. 400 years is a short period of time historically and there is no reason to stop at this your history goes back thousands of years.
Hmm 400 years of massacres and systemic detachment from "who you are as a people" (names taken away, culture and language, humans dignity etc taken away) is a long time. You have no concept of time. As I said, having roots is not the same as being West African. Black Americans recreated their own culture in American over the course of 400 years. They are and became their own unique group of people, with a new identity. A Black American identity, history and culture in America.
As always you are simply uttering, like a half-wit.
quote:The Ugly, Fascinating History Of The Word 'Racism'
The Oxford English Dictionary's first recorded utterance of the word racism was by a man named Richard Henry Pratt in 1902. Pratt was railing against the evils of racial segregation.
Segregating any class or race of people apart from the rest of the people kills the progress of the segregated people or makes their growth very slow. Association of races and classes is necessary to destroy racism and classism.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: That's simply false most AAs are into afrocentrism and even the ones who aren't interested in history think ancient egyptians are their ancestors and were black. In all my life I've only seen a few serious and smart black individuals who weren't into this madness.
Yes you can study whatever you want but stop being such a hypocrite they don't do it simply for the sake of curiosity like most "whites" do.
Afrocentrism is the curriculum called Africana. Tell me what the Africana curriculum looks like, from an academic stand point. Tell me and show me all the steps.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: See ? That's another of your pathetic attempt at trying to find any small detail that can make you cling on those populations.
What was pathetic about it?
Explain this …
This image shows of how the ancient egyptians depicted themselves:
And this….?
quote:“Ancient finds in the Western Desert of Egypt at Gebel Ramlah circa 5,000 BC show culture closely linked with indigenous tropical Africans of both the Saharan and sub-Saharan regions, not Europe or the Middle East. Dental studies put the inhabitants of Gebel Ramlah, closest to indigenous tropical African populations.”
quote:"Many of the sites reveal evidence of important interactions between Nilotic and Saharan groups during the formative phases of the Egyptian Predynastic Period (e.g. Wadi el-Hôl, Rayayna, Nuq’ Menih, Kurkur Oasis). Other sites preserve important information regarding the use of the desert routes during the Protodynastic and Pharaonic Periods, particularly during periods of political and military turmoil in the Nile Valley (e.g. Gebel Tjauti, Wadi el-Hôl)."
quote:"In the Rayayna Desert we have evidence of ossuary burials, and similar interrments are also known from Gebel Ramlah (between Nabta Playa and the southern Sinn el-Kiddab).28 The burial practices at Nuq‘ Maneih contribute to our suspicions — aroused by our work at Rayayna — that the desert communities along the Darb Gallaba/Darb Bitân route disinterred those who had died during preceding years’ treks, and brought the skeletized and dismembered bodies to major centers for burial. The practice of ossuary burial connects the Rayayna, Nabta, and Nuq‘ Maneih groups.”
quote: “The process of the peopling of the Nile Valley likely shaped the population structure and early biological similarity of Egyptians and Nubians. […] Moreover, the Mesolithic Nubian sample clustered with later Nubian and Egyptian samples, indicating that events prior to the Mesolithic were important in shaping the later genetic patterning of the Nubian population. Later contact through the establishment of the Egyptian fort at Buhen, Kerma’s position as a strategic trade center along the Nile, and Egyptian colonization at Tombos maintained genetic similarity among the populations”
quote:“The population of the pre-Mesolithic cemetery at Al Khiday 2 (16-D-4, Figure 1) in central Sudan must have had a unique outlook on the afterlife. Archaeologists associate flexed inhumation burials common to prehistoric cemeteries worldwide with the foetal position, a formal expression of a 'new life'. However, what explanation can be suggested for burying the deceased in a prone and extended position as found at Al Khiday 2? Here we report on this unique cemetery with its unusual burial rite (Figure 2)”
(Donatella Usai, Sandro Salvatori, Paola Iacumin, Antonietta Di Matteo, Tina Jakob & Andrea Zerboni, Excavating a unique pre-Mesolithic cemetery in central Sudan)
quote: There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.
In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas
[…]
Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data.
In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation.
This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography"
(Kathryn A. Bard, Egyptians, physical anthropology of Physical anthropology (2015))
quote: NJ tree based on FST values generated from Arlequin 3.11. Population names are as given in Supplementary Table S1. Population life style: circle – agriculturalists; square – pastoralists; triangle – nomads; inverted triangle – nomadic pastoralists; diamond – agro-pastoralists. The populations are colored according to their language family: red – Afro-asiatic; blue – Nilo-Saharan; green – Niger-Kordofanian; yellow – Khoisan; black – Italic and Basque.
[...]
Interestingly, this ancestral cluster includes populations like Fulani who has previously shown to display Eastern African ancestry, common history with the Hausa who are the furthest Afro-Asiatic speakers to the west in the Sahel, with a large effective size and complex genetic background.23 The Fulani who currently speak a language classified as Niger-Kordofanian may have lost their original tongue to as sociated sedentary group similar to other cattle herders in Africa a common tendency among pastoralists. Clearly cultural trends exemplified by populations, like Hausa or Massalit, the latter who have neither strong tradition in agriculture nor animal husbandry, were established subsequent to the initial differentiation of haplogroup E. For example, the early clusters within the network also include Nilo-Saharan speakers like Kunama of Eritrea and Nilotic of Sudan who are ardent nomadic pastoralists but speak a language of non-Afro-Asiatic background the predominant linguistic family within the macrohaplogroup.
[...]
The Sahel, which extends between the Atlantic coast of Africa and the Red Sea plateau, represents one of the least sampled areas and populations in the domain of human genetics. The position of Eritrea adjacent to the Red Sea coast provides opportunities for insights regarding human migrations within and beyond the African landscape.
(Eyoab I Gebremeskel1,2 and Muntaser E Ibrahim1, European Journal of Human Genetics (2014) 22, 1387–1392; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2014.41; published online 26 March 2014, Y-chromosome E haplogroups: their distribution and implication to the origin of Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralism EJHGOpen)
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: You're clearly desesperate and try to find commonalities between you and distant populations you wish would "accept" you.
When I was in Egypt they considered me to come back home to visit my family. I mean like in a biological family.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Have some pride ffs
Where did I say I have no "pride"?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: When and where?? You have a horrible habit of claiming I said things I never did. I've always maintained that Egyptians as North Africans are no more distinct in certain features from Sub-Saharans as they were to Eurasians. Which is why metrically they are intermediate between the two. Nonmetrically however, they group entirely with Sub-Saharans.
The Late Period Abusir samples from an area of Egypt known to have immigrant communities are far from accepted as being typical of indigenous Egyptians. That Egyptians are black is based on melanin dosages likening them to Sub-Saharans in terms of complexion. Not to mention again certain cranial traits traits as well body skeletal structure, HLA, HBS, paternal lineages and maternal lineages. What else is there? LOL [/QB]
This is simply a lie they don't group entirely with sub-saharans especially not negroid groups and they aren't intermediate only a small set of the population far back in time might have been "intermediate".
There is no reason to believe the abusir samples are foreigners since there is no such indication when it comes to their burial context and because they are from different time periods as highlighted by the authors :
quote:Our genetic time transect suggests genetic continuity between the Pre-Ptolemaic, Ptolemaic and Roman populations of Abusir el-Meleq, indicating that foreign rule impacted the town’s population only to a very limited degree at the genetic level. It is possible that the genetic impact of Greek and Roman immigration was more pronounced in the north-western Delta and the Fayum, where most Greek and Roman settlement concentrated43,55, or among the higher classes of Egyptian society55. Under Ptolemaic and Roman rule, ethnic descent was crucial to belonging to an elite group and afforded a privileged position in society55.
You can say they were not representative of all egyptians which would make sense but there is no reason to believe they were foreigners especially that the closest modern population to them are copts and they also cluster with 2 other egyptian samples found in Lebanon. I suppose these are all coincidences ? Also how come the 90 mtDNAs of this paper show less SSA mtDNAs than what we find in modern day Egypt ? 90 foreigners too ? LOL
melanin dosage ? Based on what ? 1 sample from upper egypt a place where even today their skin tone match with what exist in SSA ? Also you're quick to label the abusir samples as foreigners but strangely this sample is surely indigenous ? Why not a nubian ?
Can you provide the paper on any HLA study done on AEs ? Anyway all of what you wrote do not make them black since they are found in modern north africans and even non african population. For example you have more SSA lineages among modern north africans than in the past yet you never called them black.
So we conclude that you have no consistent data that supports the idea of ancient egyptians being "black".
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Hmm 400 years of massacres and systemic detachment from "who you are as a people" (names taken away, culture and language, humans dignity etc taken away) is a long time. You have no concept of time. As I said, having roots is not the same as being West African. Black Americans recreated their own culture in American over the course of 400 years. They are and became their own unique group of people, with a new identity. A Black American identity, history and culture in America.
As always you are simply uttering, like a half-wit.
Funny how now you try to reject your west african roots and then proceed to obsess over african civilization such as egypt, Morocco, etc Seems like you despise anything related to west africa.
No matter what your culture or identity is, most of your ancestors lived for thousands of years in west Africa and that's why you look closer to them than any other population that's it stop being a self hater like that.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Afrocentrism is the curriculum called Africana. Tell me what the Africana curriculum looks like, from an academic stand point. Tell me and show me all the steps. [/QB]
Africana is a bs term created by afrocentrists to make their racist supremacist ideology sounds less politically motivated.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Funny how now you try to reject your west african roots and then proceed to obsess over african civilization such as egypt, Morocco, etc Seems like you despise anything related to west africa.
More half ass wit assumptions. Tell, what do you know about me?
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: There is no reason to believe the abusir samples are foreigners since there is no such indication when it comes to their burial context and because they are from different time periods as highlighted by the authors :
Where did I say the Abusir settlement are or aren't foreigners?
All I did was show a genetic connection, and this has your panties in a bunch?
quote:“Eastern and Saharan Africans shared the most alleles absent from other African populations examined”
(Sarah A. Tishkoff, The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans)
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: You can say they were not representative of all egyptians which would make sense but there is no reason to believe they were foreigners especially that the closest modern population to them are copts and they also cluster with 2 other egyptian samples found in Lebanon. I suppose these are all coincidences ? Also how come the 90 mtDNAs of this paper show less SSA mtDNAs than what we find in modern day Egypt ? 90 foreigners too ? LOL
In fact we've always have advocated that these haplo groups have origin in Africa . So I have no idea what you are uttering here.
quote:
Colored dots indicate genetic diversity. Each new group outside of Africa represents a sampling of the genetic diversity present in its founder population. The ancestral population in Africa was sufficiently large to build up and retain substantial genetic diversity.
quote: Originally posted by Antalas: melanin dosage ? Based on what ? 1 sample from upper egypt a place where even today their skin tone match with what exist in SSA ? Also you're quick to label the abusir samples as foreigners but strangely this sample is surely indigenous ? Why not a nubian ?
What are you talking about?
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: So we conclude that you have no consistent data that supports the idea of ancient egyptians being "black"..
The social and ritual contextualisation of Ancient Egyptian hair and hairstyles from the Protodynastic to the end of the Old Kingdom Tassie, G.J.; (2009) The social and ritual contextualisation of Ancient Egyptian hair and hairstyles from the Protodynastic to the end of the Old Kingdom. Doctoral thesis , UCL (University College London).
One can always discuss how serious of an issue it is, but obviously there are Native Americans, but also African Americans, whites and Latinos who think it is worth discussing and who write books and articles, or post on social media to refute the claims made by fringe groups who claim that the precolumbian American cultures were created by black/African people. Obviously those who adress these questions think they are important enough to spend some time on.
Do you know the exact number of African Americans who claims that Black peoples were in the Americas in precolumbian times? Do you know the exact numbers of African Americans that try to refute those ideas? Do you know the exact number of Native Americans who actively, on social media or in other ways try to refute those notions? I suppose you do not know. That is why you can not say that the matter is without importance. It becomes just an opinion. But if there are people that find it worthwile to adress these questions it means that it is important for them. And if some Native Americans worry about that others in different ways ty to distort their history, it is worth discussing.
quote: Of course you are no expert on Black America, that's obvious. Otherwise you would not hav said such much utter nonsense as you do. This has nothing to do with children and a child like mindset, this has to do with the detriment of a people for 400 years. It's something you can't grasp because you lack not only the IQ, but also the EQ (emotional intelligence).
Here we go with the personal insults. Not very mature behavior. You seem to get worked up about these issues. Still you seem not to be able to grasp that some Native Americans can get upset when some Black people try to distort their past or question their identity. If you have any EQ it seems very selective.
quote: You seem not to grasp that Black Americans historical lineage has been removed from what was before 400 years prior. So what they reconstruct is based on their surroundings. This is why some claim to be from America only, especially when their census from shows some Native American ancestor. Black Americans didn't make it this complicated it was the racist American government. Can you grasp that? Yes, or no?
I never claimed to be an expert on Black Americans but still even if a group of people are being opressed it is no excuse to try to steal or distort another marginalized and oppressed groups identity and history. I never claimed that all, or a majority, of Black Americans are doing that, but enough many are doing it to be considered a problem by some Native Americans (and even some African Americans and whites who have adressed these issues).
quote: Can you tell me how many tribes and which tribes have been annihilated and what the population size was of this massacre? Black Americans who claim these things say they are the descendants of these people. Can you prove them wrong?
Do you not think that any Native American peoples where annihilated? So the Yahi people of California where not annihilated? How came that the last one of them, Ishi, saw the rest of his people being killed by the whites? Did he dream that? Which are their black descendants? So the Susquehannocks did not disappear? Where they black? So you think the original Pequots were black? What about the Natchez, did not the French crush them in 1731 so only 400 survived whereof most of them were sold as slaves to the West Indies (a few survivors took refuge among other peoples). Where they originally Black? Where the Beothuk in Canada black?
Talking about California again and I quote:
quote:According to Russell Thornton, estimates of the pre-Columbian population of California may have been as high as 300,000. By 1849, due to a number of epidemics, the number had decreased to 150,000. But from 1849 and up until 1890 the Indigenous population of California had fallen below 20,000, primarily because of the killings. At least 4,500 California Indians were killed between 1849 and 1870, while many more perished due to disease and starvation. 10,000 Indians were also kidnapped and sold as slaves.
Before the Americans arrived many California Natives where forced to work more or less as slaves at missions founded by Spanish missionaries which resulted in the death of many of them.
About Blacks claiming to be descendants of now extinct tribes: Are there any archaeological remains, or DNA evidence that any of these peoples where Black/African before they first came in contact with Europeans (and Africans)?
That some peoples can have mixed descendants is another matter. That has occurred in other parts in the world too, for example in Tasmania where some mixed descendants who survived the extermination of the Tasmanian aboriginal population.
I am actually working on trying to make a comprehensive list of Native American tribes that was annihilated, or were wiped out through disease, or whose remnants seek refuge among other tribes. It will take a while. Seems there is a need for a comprehensive list since there are revisionists who don´t believe that there has been any genocide against Native Americans, or that the reports thereof is exaggerated.
Wikipedia has a list of extinct tribes, but it is only for North America and it is incomplete.
There of course have been mixing between Native Americans and Black Americans, as there has been mixings between Native Americans and White people. That is to expect after these peoples living in proximity of each other for over 400 years. That does not mean that Native Americans were black Africans before their first contact with he Europeans (and the Black people who arrived with them).
If you want to read about genocide against Native peoples in for example California (like the Yahi people) you can start by reading "An American Genocide: The United States and the California Indian Catastrophe, 1846-1873" by Benjamin Madley. If you want to learn about Genocide in South America an introduction is Lars Perssons "The doomed Indians". About exploitation and genocide in the Amazon you can read Jacques Meuniers, and A.M. Savarins book "The Amazon chronicles". For a broad overview of what happened to Native Americans at, and after, their first contact with Europeans you can read David A Stannards "American Holocaust".
Do you question the genocide of Native Americans, are you a history revisionist like those people who deny the holocaust?
quote:Give me a list of these people and the reputable degrees they have, and the fields they are in. [quote]
The podcast was made by two people: Kurly Tlapoyawa, Supervisory Archaeologist and Professor of Chicano Studies at Colegio Chicano del Pueblo, and Ruben A. Arellano (Tlakatekatl), History Ph.D.
Here is their letter to the The Urban Review Journal who published Greg Wiggan et al:s article about African Olmecs. They read the letter in the podcast, and you can also read it here.
Other academics that adressed the narratives of Africans in precolumbian Americas are people like Warren Barbour (an A A archaeologist), Gabriel Haslip Viera (professor in Latin American and Latino Studies), Bernard Ortiz de Montellano. Ann Cyphers (archaeologist) one of the leading experts of the Olmec culture has also stated that they were not African. She has thirty years of experience conducting archaeological research in Mesoamerica. Other academics who has written about the matter is Peter Furst (cultural anthropologist), the late Michael Coe (expert on precolumbian MesoAmerican culture), Rebecca Gonzales Lauck (Research Professor at the National Institute of Anthropology and History in Tabasco), Karl Taube (art historian).
You can easily look them up, I have no interest in posting their CV:s to you since I doubt that you would care anyway. You just want to try dismisse the whole debate about the fringe claims about Black people in precolumbian Americas.
[quote] What part of IT WAS WHITE PEOPLE WHO STARTED THIS, DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
What about it? Whites may have started it but there are blacks that uphold outdated ideas. They ought to know better. If they promote an outdated, false narrativ that was started by now dead white people, how is it not their fault still promoting such ideas? It is weird, one does not so often here claIms from African Americans that the ancient Egyptians where white, which also is an idé first promoted by white people. But the idé that precolumbian Native Americans where black was obviously more easy to digest for some African Americans.
quote: Inserting, is Boddy making a comeback, is this the real Bobby or a trope?
I do not know exactly who is running the Facebook group, many people on it are anonymous.
Native Americans on social media that protested against the false narratives have many times become harrassed, so now several of them prefer to remain anonymous. Some has been spammed by hateful messages, others have been hanged out on social media with name and photos, some have gotten angry phone calls.
People like the archaeologist "Navajorocks" (I must look up his real name, I forgot it) who made a couple of videos questioning or refuting the Black precolumbian Native narrative has been harrassed and his account reported.
I know some of the Native Americans that debate these issues by their real names. We have had e-mail contact, video chats, messenger groups and so on. But do not ask me to reveal their names here. I do not want to contribute to them being harrassed.
I know one woman telling about her trips to Mexico and how proud she was over her ancestors achievements. She was called a wh*re, and her Native identity was questioned by some aggressive "Wabos" or extreme "Afrocentrics" or whatever one wants to call them.
I was among other groups in a group where we refuted specific claims made by the fringe people and where we searched for the origin to some of the fake or mislabeled images they often post.
The pictures you show, are not made by black Americans, you already know that. They are made by Europeans whereof many never visited America. They often mixed different elements from both Africa and America (and some totally free fantasies) to create allegorical or pedagogical images often aimed at people who also never visited America.
Most Europeans were more acquainted with Black Africans so they often used them as a model for these pictures and paintings.
Interestingly enough the oldest European painting with what at least some experts believe are Native Americans show them as white. But one can doubt if that painter ever saw any real Native Americans either.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The point is and has always been that Europeans created the concept of race and applied it all over the world starting a few hundred years ago. And yes, black was never limited to Africa and many times was applied to any population with similar skin colors and features. And at the same time, they came up with other racial classifications in order to 'muddy the waters' by in many cases removing 'black' from certain populations by calling them something different like "caucasian", solely based on facial features, not skin color. This is how you get black Ethiopians treated as if they are not Black Africans in general purely based on certain cranial features being common in Ethiopia. And no matter how much people try to claim otherwise, this pseudo-science of race still persists to this day and is applied even in genetics. So the problem started with Europeans and the fact that some non Europeans parrot or promote such talking points doesn't change this. Great Zimbabwe is part of this model of trying to appropriate any kind of ancient "advanced" society to some other 'racial' group other than black within the European white supremacist model of history. And they have done it everywhere and we have discussed this many times.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
When it comes to some of the Native American people I spoke with they feel that their history and identity are under attack from both some whites (as for example in the discussions about the Solutréen hypothesis and Kennewick man), and now also by some Black people who are parroting the doctrines that were created by the whites, just that white is exchanged with black in those narratives.
One Native American I spoke with said that he felt that some of the research about things as population Y also was a part of a larger narrative to further remove Native Americans from their heritage. He felt that many had an exaggerated focus on the Australasian part of the DNA of some Native Americans but where not so concerned with the remaining 98% or so of the DNA which is not Australasian.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: When it comes to some of the Native American people I spoke with they feel that their history and identity are under attack from both some whites (as for example in the discussions about the Solutréen hypothesis and Kennewick man), and now also by some Black people who are parroting the doctrines that were created by the whites, just that white is exchanged with black in those narratives.
One Native American I spoke with said that he felt that some of the research about things as population Y also was a part of a larger narrative to further remove Native Americans from their heritage. He felt that many had an exaggerated focus on the Australasian part of the DNA of some Native Americans but where not so concerned with the remaining 98% or so of the DNA which is not Australasian.
Europeans and only Europeans stole everything from the Native Americans. History, land, people, culture, gold, resources, etc. Just like the Europeans stole everything from Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia). How on earth do you try and equate some fringe theories among some AAs to what Europeans did and continue to do is ridiculous. AAs didn't colonize America and didn't create European racial theories and there is a thread on population Y. The people doing those studies aren't black people. And there is already a thread on it, why do we need to discuss that here?
Bottom line, Europeans have been shown themselves to be liars, especially when it comes to skin color in the history of anthropology. They have been obsessed with skin color and promoted it since the began colonizing the world. To sit here and suggest this is something that originates anywhere else is pure revisionist fantasy. And that is the point, but many online love to argue that somehow "Afrocentrics" created this and are the cause of it knowing that this is false. Anything but to deny the obvious that these Europeans have been obsessed with skin color for the last few hundred years at least.
Just like this following image makes no logical sense. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Sorry to contradict you here, but where did you read that AE group with stereotypically "sub-Saharan" (i.e. West or Central African) populations in nonmetric analyses? The Hanihara papers made it look like they and Kushites grouped with Europeans rather than SSA. Now, I personally don't interpret those results as showing that Egypto-Nubian populations were necessarily "Caucasoid" or "West Eurasian" (I don't think I need to go into how I personally interpret such results), but it wouldn't be right to say they grouped with West/Central African populations instead.
I was referring to the 1976 Berry & Berry study which Keita (1993) cited: Berry et al (1967) showed that numerous Egyptian series from different regions and epochs usually showed greater affinity to one another than to Sudanese, Palestinian (Lachish), and West African (Ashanti) series. Notably missing from their study were the A, C, X, and Meroitic Nubian groups. Numerous inconsistencies were apparent in that successive regional populations sometimes had less affinity to one another than to some from greatly different time periods and regions. For example, early Nakada predynastic crania had less affinity with late Nakada series than the even earlier predynastic Badari did with the late dynastic northern Gizeh groups! Overall, when the Egyptian crania are evaluated in a Near Eastern (Lachish) versus African (Kerma, Jebel Moya, Ashanti) context, the affinity is with the Africans. The Sudan and Palestine are the most appropriate comparative regions which would have "donated" people, along with the Sahara and Maghreb. Archaeology validates looking to these regions for population flow (see Hassan 1988).
As for Hanihara's study, could you specify which one? Because if you recall I cited his 2003 study in my thread here showing that according to his PCO data, Egyptians and other North Africans are in an intermediate position between Sub-Saharans and Eurasians. Either way they are NOT as Antalas wishes grouped entirely with Eurasians but form a continuity of sorts with Sub-Saharans for the obvious reason that North Africans are also Africans.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
@ Djehuti
I was referring to that 2003 study by Hanihara, going off memory. But thanks for the clarification regardless.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Europeans and only Europeans stole everything from the Native Americans. History, land, people, culture, gold, resources, etc. Just like the Europeans stole everything from Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia). How on earth do you try and equate some fringe theories among some AAs to what Europeans did and continue to do is ridiculous. AAs didn't colonize America and didn't create European racial theories and there is a thread on population Y. The people doing those studies aren't black people. And there is already a thread on it, why do we need to discuss that here?
Bottom line, Europeans have been shown themselves to be liars, especially when it comes to skin color in the history of anthropology. They have been obsessed with skin color and promoted it since the began colonizing the world. To sit here and suggest this is something that originates anywhere else is pure revisionist fantasy. And that is the point, but many online love to argue that somehow "Afrocentrics" created this and are the cause of it knowing that this is false. Anything but to deny the obvious that these Europeans have been obsessed with skin color for the last few hundred years at least.
Well, it is not mainly I who are worried about these things, I am only supportive of some friends among Native Americans. I am not alone disussing these issues.
And, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, obviously some people worry about this, or are interested in the issues, since not only Native Americans but even some African Americans and some White and Latino people have written about it or have discussed it on social media.
Population Y I only mentioned as an example of things I heard Native Americans discuss. I leave the discussion about it to the other thread.
For some reasons there has been people debating these questions for many years now,
African Origins of Olmec Civilization - Debunked https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ0OwYjVHhI&t=4216s (a couple of white guys discuss the issue. In the video also a comparison with Great Zimbabwe is made. Razib Khan is also in the video discussing DNA)
Why do you think that people take their time to write articles, books, letters, make videos or talk on social media about this subject? Why would for example also an African American archaeologist like Warren Barbour write about it? For some reason some people actually like to discuss these issues, or think they are important.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Just like this following image makes no logical sense.
About images. An Olmec head painted on an African-American heritage Juneteenth mural made by artist Reginal C. Adams. The mural located in Galveston created a controversy. After a petition on Change.org it was removed.
The controversial Olmec head
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Europeans and only Europeans stole everything from the Native Americans. History, land, people, culture, gold, resources, etc. Just like the Europeans stole everything from Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia). How on earth do you try and equate some fringe theories among some AAs to what Europeans did and continue to do is ridiculous. AAs didn't colonize America and didn't create European racial theories and there is a thread on population Y. The people doing those studies aren't black people. And there is already a thread on it, why do we need to discuss that here?
Bottom line, Europeans have been shown themselves to be liars, especially when it comes to skin color in the history of anthropology. They have been obsessed with skin color and promoted it since the began colonizing the world. To sit here and suggest this is something that originates anywhere else is pure revisionist fantasy. And that is the point, but many online love to argue that somehow "Afrocentrics" created this and are the cause of it knowing that this is false. Anything but to deny the obvious that these Europeans have been obsessed with skin color for the last few hundred years at least.
Well, it is not mainly I who are worried about these things, I am only supportive of some friends among Native Americans. I am not alone disussing these issues.
And, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, obviously some people worry about this, or are interested in the issues, since not only Native Americans but even some African Americans and some White and Latino people have written about it or have discussed it on social media.
Population Y I only mentioned as an example of things I heard Native Americans discuss. I leave the discussion about it to the other thread.
For some reasons there has been people debating these questions for many years now,
African Origins of Olmec Civilization - Debunked https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ0OwYjVHhI&t=4216s (a couple of white guys discuss the issue. In the video also a comparison with Great Zimbabwe is made. Razib Khan is also in the video discussing DNA)
Why do you think that people take their time to write articles, books, letters, make videos or talk on social media about this subject? Why would for example also an African American archaeologist like Warren Barbour write about it? For some reason some people actually like to discuss these issues, or think they are important.
Again, you keep ignoring the fact that the people who first claimed that the Olmecs were at least part African were the Mexicans who first discovered them. This is not something that originated with African scholars as you claimed. Native Americans have always been diverse and the reason that so-called "Negroid" features are confused with Africans is because of European racial theories. None of that comes from African scholars, because racial models based on facial features and phenotype is something created by Europeans......
quote: Mexico had abolished slavery in 1829 under an African-Mexican president, and Melgar y Serrano’s statement suggested ideas about race far ahead of his time (slavery, of course, was legal in the United States until 1865). By suggesting an ancient blending of Mexican and African cultures, Melgar y Serrano was implicitly arguing against the ideas of racial purity that led (and still lead) to violence and oppression. Since their discovery, these Olmec heads have spurred new research and interpretations that, more than anything, offer insight into how we look at other cultures.
In her new book, How Do We Look: The Body, the Divine, and the Question of Civilization, classicist Mary Beard invokes the example of the Olmec heads to assert that “how we look can confuse, even distort, our understanding of civilisations beyond our own.” She argues that 18th-century scholar Johann Joachim Winckelmann cited the Apollo Belvedere—a sculpture of an idealized human form, either Greek or Roman, its date of creation unknown—as being the “very pinnacle of classical art.” Future generations understood the work as a manifestation of expertly worked out proportions and “civilized” society.
That’s why, Beard suggests, it wasn’t the colossal stone heads but Olmec Wrestler (date unknown) that became “the poster boy not just for the Olmec but for all ancient Mexico,” beginning in the 1960s. Unlike the oversized Olmec heads, the seated figure displays more lifelike proportions, and his arms appear strong and ready to fight; he’s unlike any other discoveries from Mexican antiquity—and is now even considered a potential fake. The Wrestler was said to have been found in 1933 by a farmer near Veracruz, but its stone is unlike any of the area’s natural materials. “The wrestler seems to fall outside many of the canons known for Olmec monumental sculpture,” Susan Millbrath wrote in a 1979 study. She suggested that the wrestler represents "a little-known aspect of Olmec monumental art."
The Mexican government purchased the sculpture as part of an attempt to glorify the country’s cultural past. As opposed to Melgar y Serrano, who’d tied ancient Mexican civilization to Africa, the 20th-century authorities seemed compelled to link their past with that of Greece and Rome.
Beard herself is suspicious of the Wrestler’s provenance. She writes, "If this is the work of an outstanding Olmec sculptor, it is one who by chance got later tastes spot on, hitting on the particular blend that we often look for in the art of other cultures: that it should be sufficiently different from our own to count as foreign, but at the same time fully understandable in our own aesthetic terms."
Basically here the last bold section is saying that the Olmec heads were too "negroid" or black looking. Again, not coming from African scholars. The point being that the concept of "negroid" being a race primarily found in Africa starts with European scholars and nobody else.
For example, Ignacio Bernal wrote he following in his book, The Olmec World in 1969:
quote: I believe that this is the 'Olmec type' as well as we can reconstruct it. Nevertheless there are still other problems. Let us observe the epicanthus a moment = the most typical trait of Mongoloid faces; it clearly indicates its Asiatic provenance and does not offer any special problem. But at the same time let us remember that it has often been said that the colossal heads represent a Negroid type; this would indicate the presence of true Negroes who reached the Gulf Coast. This migration is improbable though not impossible, and even more improbable is the combination of the epicanthus with Negroid faces. The combination is frequently found in Olmec figures which are not men but children, and which form one of the basic themes of Olmec art. Children everywhere tend to have more rounded and chubby-cheeked faces, shorter and wider noses, and thicker lips than the adults they will be in time. The same appearance results when the human face is combined with the short, wide nose of the jaguar. Both the children and the men-jaguars represent an aesthetic ideal and not a definite race.
Then you also have Thor Heyerdahl who actually built reed boats to prove that the Africans could have sailed to the Americas:
quote: Heyerdahl later became interested in the possibility of cultural contact between early peoples of Africa and Central and South America. Certain cultural similarities, such as the shared importance of pyramid building in ancient Egyptian and Mexican civilizations, perhaps suggested a link. To test the feasibility of ancient transatlantic travel, Heyerdahl built a 45-foot-long copy of an ancient Egyptian papyrus vessel in 1969, with the aid of traditional boatbuilders from Lake Chad in Central Africa. Constructed at the foot of the Pyramids and named after the sun god Ra, it was later transported to Safi in Morocco, from where it set sail for the Caribbean on May 24, 1969. Defects in design and other problems caused it to founder in July, 600 miles short of its goal. It had sailed 3,000 miles.
Undaunted, Heyerdahl constructed a second papyrus craft, the Ra II, with the aid of Aymaro Indian boatbuilders from Lake Titicaca in Bolivia. With a multinational crew of seven, the Ra II set sail from Safi on May 17, 1970. After a voyage of 57 days and 4,000 miles, the ship arrived in Barbados. The story of this voyage is recorded in the book The Ra Expeditions (1971) and in a documentary film.
So again, what does this have to do with Great Zimbabwe? Seriously you aren't claiming that Europeans have not been promoting falsehoods in history and anthropology far beyond anything Africans have ever done. Not to mention all the systematic theft, murder and everything else along with that.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
If there wasn't a trend of Eurocentric historiography racially whitewashing or denigrating indigenous African civilizations, I doubt Afrocentrics would pay as much attention to the Olmecs or other civilizations outside of Africa. I do find the Black African Olmec claims etc. to be an annoying problem, but you can't deny they're a reaction to the narrative that "Black" Africa has produced nothing worthy (or at least nothing worthy without "Caucasoid" input).
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: If there wasn't a trend of Eurocentric historiography racially whitewashing or denigrating indigenous African civilizations, I doubt Afrocentrics would pay as much attention to the Olmecs or other civilizations outside of Africa. I do find the Black African Olmec claims etc. to be an annoying problem, but you can't deny they're a reaction to the narrative that "Black" Africa has produced nothing worthy (or at least nothing worthy without "Caucasoid" input).
stfu you do the exact same thing to north africans. You normalize racism towards north africans and try to constantly erase them from their history. You probably do this only to make profit from blacks by selling them your fictional stories. I will not even speak about your propension to depict interacial relations and constantly sexualizing black women.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: If there wasn't a trend of Eurocentric historiography racially whitewashing or denigrating indigenous African civilizations, I doubt Afrocentrics would pay as much attention to the Olmecs or other civilizations outside of Africa. I do find the Black African Olmec claims etc. to be an annoying problem, but you can't deny they're a reaction to the narrative that "Black" Africa has produced nothing worthy (or at least nothing worthy without "Caucasoid" input).
stfu you do the exact same thing to north africans. You normalize racism towards north africans and try to constantly erase them from their history. You probably do this only to make profit from blacks by selling them your fictional stories. I will not even speak about your propension to depict interacial relations and constantly sexualizing black women.
And you completely erase indigenous Black North Africans from both Ancient to modern times unless they come in the package or slavery(your favorite excuse). I seem to recall you telling me I made up people calling the Mauretanians and Numidians Black at which point I pulled several citations.
You also conveniently ignore the enslavement of Non-Blacks into the Maghreb, as well as the fact that the TAST included North Africans and East Africans. That in the USA they had to eventually *codify* that freed people of North Africa from Morocco to Egypt were exempt from the enslavement of Black Africans is significant in itself.
Maybe you should focus on yourself instead of writing thinkpieces on Black Americans and our issues?
Out of respect for keeping the forum mostly civil I have laid back from getting with you on this, but I have time today.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
As for Hanihara's study, could you specify which one? Because if you recall I cited his 2003 study in my thread here showing that according to his PCO data, Egyptians and other North Africans are in an intermediate position between Sub-Saharans and Eurasians. Either way they are NOT as Antalas wishes grouped entirely with Eurasians but form a continuity of sorts with Sub-Saharans for the obvious reason that North Africans are also Africans. [/QB]
Literally no mention of being "intermediate" in this paper just your interpretation of the chart which simply further confirms that you clearly don't know much on the subject. "intermediate" would make sense for populations like ethiopians, sudanese, eritreans, etc certainly not north africans.
Reality which you constantly avoid :
quote:We recognized five major modern dental populations: Western Eurasia (including North Africa and India), sub-Saharan Africa, Sino-America, SundaPacific, and Sahul-Pacific. These divisions have substantial correspondence with linguistic, archaeological, genetic, and ethnographic classifications.
Joel D. Irish, Anthropological perspectives on Tooth Morphology, pp. 28
quote:Three broad geographic based groups are evident: (1) Europe/Mediterranean (Europe, West Asia, North Africa) , (2) Northeast Asia/New World (South Siberia, China-Mongolia, Northeast Asia, American Arctic, North and South Native Americans), and (3) Australia/Oceania (Southeast Asia, Australia, Melanesia, Micronesia, Polynesia). These groupings, alone, support the utility of categorization at a broad, that is, geographic, level [e.g., Mongoloid Dental Complex (Hanihara 1968) and Sinodonty characterize the second grouping]. Moreover, the Southeast Asian sample, as would be expected given known population history, is intermediate between the latter two groups. The sub-Saharan sample is divergent from all others, though it is more or less equidistant between Europe/Mediterranean and Australia/Oceania.
Joel D. Irish, Anthropological perspectives on Tooth Morphology, pp. 279
quote:As seen in Figure 2, there is an obvious separation of Sub-Saharan and North African samples, yet apparent homogeneity within regions — particularly North Africa. These findings are supported by previous affinity estimates based on African genetic, skeletal, dermatoglyphic, anthropometric, linguistic, and cultural data (see Mourant 1954, 1983; Greenberg 1959, 1966; Murdock 1959; Hiernaux 1975; Nurse et al, 1985; Sanchez-Mazas et al, 1986; Excoffier et al, 1987; Roychoudhury and Nei 1988; Howells 1989; Froment, 1992a,b; Franciscus 1995; Holliday 1995; among others).
What's funny is that your interpretation of "intermediate" based on the position of senegambians or tukulor is based on something you forgot :
quote:And fourth, dentitions of Sub-Saharan/North African boundary groups (i.e., Senegambia (SEN), Tukulor (TUK), Chad (???)) indicate probable North African genetic input based on lower frequencies of LM1 deflecting wrinkle and LM1 cusp 7, and higher UM3 agenesis.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: If there wasn't a trend of Eurocentric historiography racially whitewashing or denigrating indigenous African civilizations, I doubt Afrocentrics would pay as much attention to the Olmecs or other civilizations outside of Africa. I do find the Black African Olmec claims etc. to be an annoying problem, but you can't deny they're a reaction to the narrative that "Black" Africa has produced nothing worthy (or at least nothing worthy without "Caucasoid" input).
stfu you do the exact same thing to north africans. You normalize racism towards north africans and try to constantly erase them from their history. You probably do this only to make profit from blacks by selling them your fictional stories. I will not even speak about your propension to depict interacial relations and constantly sexualizing black women.
And you completely erase indigenous Black North Africans from both Ancient to modern times unless they come in the package or slavery(your favorite excuse). I seem to recall you telling me I made up people calling the Mauretanians and Numidians Black at which point I pulled several citations.
You also conveniently ignore the enslavement of Non-Blacks into the Maghreb, as well as the fact that the TAST included North Africans and East Africans. That in the USA they had to eventually *codify* that freed people of North Africa from Morocco to Egypt were exempt from the enslavement of Black Africans is significant in itself.
Maybe you should focus on yourself instead of writing thinkpieces on Black Americans and our issues?
Out of respect for keeping the forum mostly civil I have laid back from getting with you on this, but I have time today.
Like I asked to Ish Geber before, can you provide a single evidence of a proper black population indigenous to mediterranean north africa between 3000 BC and today ? (a hyperbolic term used in an ancient literary text isn't an evidence).
Moreover I already acknowledge the enslavement of other people in North africa and showed that their numbers were ridiculously small compared to the millions of imported black slaves.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: If there wasn't a trend of Eurocentric historiography racially whitewashing or denigrating indigenous African civilizations, I doubt Afrocentrics would pay as much attention to the Olmecs or other civilizations outside of Africa. I do find the Black African Olmec claims etc. to be an annoying problem, but you can't deny they're a reaction to the narrative that "Black" Africa has produced nothing worthy (or at least nothing worthy without "Caucasoid" input).
stfu you do the exact same thing to north africans. You normalize racism towards north africans and try to constantly erase them from their history. You probably do this only to make profit from blacks by selling them your fictional stories. I will not even speak about your propension to depict interacial relations and constantly sexualizing black women.
And you completely erase indigenous Black North Africans from both Ancient to modern times unless they come in the package or slavery(your favorite excuse). I seem to recall you telling me I made up people calling the Mauretanians and Numidians Black at which point I pulled several citations.
You also conveniently ignore the enslavement of Non-Blacks into the Maghreb, as well as the fact that the TAST included North Africans and East Africans. That in the USA they had to eventually *codify* that freed people of North Africa from Morocco to Egypt were exempt from the enslavement of Black Africans is significant in itself.
Maybe you should focus on yourself instead of writing thinkpieces on Black Americans and our issues?
Out of respect for keeping the forum mostly civil I have laid back from getting with you on this, but I have time today.
Like I asked to Ish Geber before, can you provide a single evidence of a proper black population indigenous to mediterranean north africa between 3000 BC and today ? (a hyperbolic term used in an ancient literary text isn't an evidence).
Moreover I already acknowledge the enslavement of other people in North africa and showed that their numbers were ridiculously small compared to the millions of imported black slaves.
A "hyperbolic term" from people who were actually contemporaneous with the North African populations in question? But calling people Burnt-Faces isn't 'hyperbolic"?
Ok. I'll play this game with you.
What is a "proper Black population" in your world? This way I can cut straight through your bull.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: A "hyperbolic term" from people who were actually contemporaneous with the North African populations in question? But calling people Burnt-Faces isn't 'hyperbolic"?
Ok. I'll play this game with you.
What is a "proper Black population" in your world? This way I can cut straight through your bull. [/QB]
It doesn't even make sense since aethiopian was the word used to describe black people (even dark skinned asians) and this term never got used for north africans.
Aithiopes was *one* term to describe Black people, and exceptionally dark people at that. It was not the only one or as broad in its pigment range as the modern American racial category Black is. Hence Ptolemy the Geographer referring to the people beyond the first Cataract as a sort of half-caste and the *pure* ethiopians being closer to Meroe.
And some african authors like Manilius claimed they were the lightest of all "black" people so yes it was clearly hyperbolic to describe a population that was darker than europeans or even levantines. You can ask any modern european if north africans are as light as them or if they are "white" and you'll see their answers.
I'm not talking about Modern Europeans. I'm talking about Ancient ones. Though there are certainly numerous medieval to early Modern European writers who described legions of black Moors(before the later creation of "Blackamoor" and "tawny Moor" as well as the broadening of Moor to include Muslims of any color)
Anyway You completely ignore the genetic and anthropological papers and even all the depictions we have. You ignore the cardial and bell beakers migrations, you don't have datas about capsians except anthropometric datas which don't show any particular SSA affinity and even the paleo/mesolithic iberomaurusian population was distinct from sub-saharans so what is your evidence pls ?
I don't ignore anything. Black in the racial sense is a socially defined term, not a scientifically valid term. Yet your ilk continues to try to make Black a biologically valid category hence your constant moving of the goalposts to cover up your continued trotting out of the "True Negro". That is besides the point of the countless depictions we have of Black North Africans that you call exaggerations.
A hypothetical indigenous black north african population would be a population that show either great physical or genetic similarity to niger-congo speakers of sub-saharan africa and that is indigenous to mediterranean north africa (not the sahara since I already acknowledge the presence of indigenous black populations there). I swear If you're able to provide a single evidence of it I'll frankly accept it.
Now we get to the meat of it. So your definition of Black is anyone that resembles niger-congo speakers either physically or genetically. That is awfully convenient and a nice way to exclude the rest of the continent.
[ 09. November 2022, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: Punos_Rey ]
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
Please see my comments above. I figured you would have such an arbitrarily and tightly construed definition of Black to make sure your opponent would have to jump through as many hoops as possible.
Now do tell me what is the physical Niger-Congo type? And no this is not a trick question.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: A hypothetical indigenous black north african population would be a population that show either great physical or genetic similarity to niger-congo speakers of sub-saharan africa
I take it Nilotes, Omotics, and Hadza aren't really Black people then, either? They don't speak Niger-Congo languages.
Sheesh, even by "true Negro" standards, this is restrictive.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: A hypothetical indigenous black north african population would be a population that show either great physical or genetic similarity to niger-congo speakers of sub-saharan africa
I take it Nilotes, Omotics, and Hadza aren't really Black people then, either? They don't speak Niger-Congo languages.
Sheesh, even by "true Negro" standards, this is restrictive.
I forgot them so most sub-saharan africans except mixed groups like horners (the ones with substantial amount of eurasian ancestry ofc) and malagasy
I want evidence of indigenous mediterranean north africans who looked like this :
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote: Posted by Doug M Again, you keep ignoring the fact that the people who first claimed that the Olmecs were at least part African were the Mexicans who first discovered them. This is not something that originated with African scholars as you claimed. Native Americans have always been diverse and the reason that so-called "Negroid" features are confused with Africans is because of European racial theories. None of that comes from African scholars, because racial models based on facial features and phenotype is something created by Europeans......
I of course know that African Americans did not come up with these ideas from the beginning. But unfortunately some African Americans continue to uphold outdated racial models, as for example when they draw the conclusion that the Olmecs where African based on the look on the famous stone heads which are just a fraction of all Olmec art that has been found. They often ignore artwork that show other features. And other types of evidence (like genetics) they also often ignore. It seems that their ignorance is willful, many of them ought to know better (and probably do it), but their reasons to uphold the myths seem many times to be political and ideological.
quote:Then you also have Thor Heyerdahl who actually built reed boats to prove that the Africans could have sailed to the Americas
I am very aware of Heyerdahls reed boat adventures (Ra I and Ra II), they showed that such travels were not impossible, but they did not prove that such travels actually took place. If one should claim that such travels took place one have to find unmistakably African artifacts (preferably made in Africa, or at least of the same type, as for example metal objects) and maybe buildings, and human remains with a DNA profile that is compatible with whatever African people these travelers descended from. If they continued to have any prolonged contact with their ancient home countries one could also expect exchange of domestic plants and domestic animals.
No one have proved Heyerdahl right yet concerning ancient African travels. His first great adventure though was a journey over the Pacific from South America to Polynesia, and later genetic research suggest contacts between some Polynesian islands and South America, some 800 years ago.
On L'Anse aux Meadows on Newfoundland a few Norse people who stayed for a rather limited time period still left very tangible traces of their existence with remains of houses, a smithy, metal objects and similar. Africans who came to the Americas and according to many of the speculations even founded whole civilisations, and who maybe remained in contact with their old home continent, would have left much more traces than a few vikings.
Maybe someone actually crossed over from Africa to South America, but we still have to find any convincing evidence. Until then it remains speculations. People who have worked as archaeologists in for example Mesoamerica for a long time have not found any such evidence (yet). I know personally some archaeologists who work there, one for more than 25 years.
[/quote] So again, what does this have to do with Great Zimbabwe? Seriously you aren't claiming that Europeans have not been promoting falsehoods in history and anthropology far beyond anything Africans have ever done. Not to mention all the systematic theft, murder and everything else along with that.[/quote]
I never claim that Europeans did not do all those things. But there are some similarities between the cases of Zimbabwe and the Olmecs, in both cases we have members of one people who claim that they founded a civilisation that was founded by a completely different people. Great Zimbabwe was claimed in a colonial context, while todays African American claims are not colonialist per se (since A A people not physically have invaded for example Mexico), but the claims still show some kind of colonial mindset, and a disregard for Native American feelings and right to their heritage. That some people really dislike this can be seen by the reaction on the Olmec head in the Juneteenth painting. It is a matter of pride over ones ancestors and ones identity. Native Americans are not fond of white peoples distortions of their cultures either. The bitterness over the whites is of course larger than over African Americans.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: A hypothetical indigenous black north african population would be a population that show either great physical or genetic similarity to niger-congo speakers of sub-saharan africa
I take it Nilotes, Omotics, and Hadza aren't really Black people then, either? They don't speak Niger-Congo languages.
Sheesh, even by "true Negro" standards, this is restrictive.
I forgot them so most sub-saharan africans except mixed groups like horners (the ones with substantial amount of eurasian ancestry ofc) and malagasy
I want evidence of indigenous mediterranean north africans who looked like this :
Who are these people and which country are they from? Are they from Niger-Congo country? I'm surprised you didn't post a pitch black, afroed, wide eyed, bright red lipped minstrel instead.
Back to seriousness, I asked you for a definition of what a Niger-Congo person looks like. I want you to actually type out what physical traits is the Niger-Congo type.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Aithiopes was *one* term to describe Black people, and exceptionally dark people at that. It was not the only one or as broad in its pigment range as the modern American racial category Black is. Hence Ptolemy the Geographer referring to the people beyond the first Cataract as a sort of half-caste and the *pure* ethiopians being closer to Meroe.
That's not the opinion of scholars (including black scholars who studied the question like Frank M. Snowden) and aithiopes was literally a descriptive term above all why distinguishing two populations who apparently had the same skin color with a term that explicitly refers to dark skin color ? And yes of course he refers to ethiopians closer to meroe being "purer" that's exactly what we can see today with the eurasian admixed lower nubians being clearly different physically from south sudanese.
If north africans were black why the existence of intermediate types known as "black gaetulians" or "libyoaethiopes" ? especially where we should expect them to be :
"As one advanced further to the south of Gaetulian lands, into the Sahara and its northern peripheries, the ethnic labels became fuzzier, more general, and often, since land and space were so vast and indeterminate, they were based more on a phenotyping of personal appearance than of place. The peoples deep to the south in the Sahara were called Aethiopes or peoples whose skin had been burnt to a darker color. (Hölscher 1937; Thompson 1989; Desanges 1993). The simple existence of these peoples naturally suggested to the logical mind the necessary existence of intervening types, and so the category of Melanogaetuloi, black Gaetulians, was invented and bandied about by scientific geographers such as Ptolemy. Analogous terms such as Leukoaethiopes, “white black people,” or Libyaethiopes, “African black people,” were exploited by the same Ptolemy and by Pomponius Mela, all in the name of the geographer’s science."
Brent D. Shaw, Ethnicity in the ancient mediterranean, pp. 532
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: I'm not talking about Modern Europeans. I'm talking about Ancient ones. Though there are certainly numerous medieval to early Modern European writers who described legions of black Moors(before the later creation of "Blackamoor" and "tawny Moor" as well as the broadening of Moor to include Muslims of any color)
I'm not aware of any of this and you might refer again to hyperbolic labels like the one used by Isidore of Sevilla.
Not even black scholar like Frank snowden agree with you :
quote: "The child of a white mother and an ethiopian father was decolor (discolor). These two words were often used to describe the skin color of the peoples of India and Mauretania."
Frank M. Snowden Jr., Blacks in Antiquity, Harvard University Press, pp. 4
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: I don't ignore anything. Black in the racial sense is a socially defined term, not a scientifically valid term. Yet your ilk continues to try to make Black a biologically valid category hence your constant moving of the goalposts to cover up your continued trotting out of the "True Negro". That is besides the point of the countless depictions we have of Black North Africans that you call exaggerations.
The only "socially defined term" is your american label which do not acknowledge all the mixed individuals and which is very inclusive hence useless and inaccurate. But for anthropologists or geneticists it's quite easy to distinguish west eurasians from sub-saharan africans or east asians (this does not prevent continuums from existing ofc).
You did not adress what I said. Why do you ignore all the studies on the biological profile and affinities of ancient north africans ? Literally none of them have shown the presence in ancient mediterranean north africa of a "black" population. And we don't have "countless depictions" of black north africans all you have are dubious medieval european depictions. I already made a thread about depiction of ancient north africans why did you ignore it ?
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Now we get to the meat of it. So your definition of Black is anyone that resembles niger-congo speakers either physically or genetically. That is awfully convenient and a nice way to exclude the rest of the continent. [/QB]
You actually have to restrict to something that makes sense : population defined by common characteristics especially when it comes to genetics or phenotypes.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Who are these people and which country are they from? Are they from Niger-Congo country? I'm surprised you didn't post a pitch black, afroed, wide eyed, bright red lipped minstrel instead.
Back to seriousness, I asked you for a definition of what a Niger-Congo person looks like. I want you to actually type out what physical traits is the Niger-Congo type. [/QB]
I've never believed in the true negro stereotype since there is obviously a minimum of variation among SSAs but like with any other population, they have their own physical specifities like frizzy hair combined with dark skin, negroid features/metrics as defined by anthropologists and which are easily recognizable, etc stop trying to have a very relativistic approach as if sub-saharans could look like anything.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Who are these people and which country are they from? Are they from Niger-Congo country? I'm surprised you didn't post a pitch black, afroed, wide eyed, bright red lipped minstrel instead.
Back to seriousness, I asked you for a definition of what a Niger-Congo person looks like. I want you to actually type out what physical traits is the Niger-Congo type.
I've never believed in the true negro stereotype since there is obviously a minimum of variation among SSAs but like with any other population, they have their own physical specifities like frizzy hair combined with dark skin, negroid features/metrics as defined by anthropologists and which are easily recognizable, etc stop trying to have a very relativistic approach as if sub-saharans could look like anything. [/QB]
What studies are you reading that says there's a minimum of variation among SSAs?
I'm going to ask you one more time before I lose any remaining interest in this discussion.
What, in your own words, does a Niger-Congo speaking person look like?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote: Posted by Doug M Again, you keep ignoring the fact that the people who first claimed that the Olmecs were at least part African were the Mexicans who first discovered them. This is not something that originated with African scholars as you claimed. Native Americans have always been diverse and the reason that so-called "Negroid" features are confused with Africans is because of European racial theories. None of that comes from African scholars, because racial models based on facial features and phenotype is something created by Europeans......
I of course know that African Americans did not come up with these ideas from the beginning. But unfortunately some African Americans continue to uphold outdated racial models, as for example when they draw the conclusion that the Olmecs where African based on the look on the famous stone heads which are just a fraction of all Olmec art that has been found. They often ignore artwork that show other features. And other types of evidence (like genetics) they also often ignore. It seems that their ignorance is willful, many of them ought to know better (and probably do it), but their reasons to uphold the myths seem many times to be political and ideological.
If the idea that the Olmec heads were "Negroid" and therefore evidence of African origin didn't come from so-called Afrocentrics, why keep focusing on Afrocentrics as the only ones promoting the idea when they aren't? You seem to be acting like it is something that came from them when it didn't. The root of the issue is the use of European racial typologies which is where this idea of African Olmecs came from. I find it odd how you are avoiding the outrage of the whole concept of racial models that originated with Europans as part of divide and conquer but you are quick to jump on Africans using them. It is hypocritical. Europeans have spread more misinformation and pseudo science about "race" than anybody on the planet but you make it seem like this is somehow an "Afrocentric" thing or somehow that the Afrocentrics are the 'more evil' than the Europeans who raped, pillaged, conquered and robbed their way around the entire planet and created racial hierarchies everywhere they went.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Then you also have Thor Heyerdahl who actually built reed boats to prove that the Africans could have sailed to the Americas
I am very aware of Heyerdahls reed boat adventures (Ra I and Ra II), they showed that such travels were not impossible, but they did not prove that such travels actually took place. If one should claim that such travels took place one have to find unmistakably African artifacts (preferably made in Africa, or at least of the same type, as for example metal objects) and maybe buildings, and human remains with a DNA profile that is compatible with whatever African people these travelers descended from. If they continued to have any prolonged contact with their ancient home countries one could also expect exchange of domestic plants and domestic animals.
No one have proved Heyerdahl right yet concerning ancient African travels. His first great adventure though was a journey over the Pacific from South America to Polynesia, and later genetic research suggest contacts between some Polynesian islands and South America, some 800 years ago.
On L'Anse aux Meadows on Newfoundland a few Norse people who stayed for a rather limited time period still left very tangible traces of their existence with remains of houses, a smithy, metal objects and similar. Africans who came to the Americas and according to many of the speculations even founded whole civilisations, and who maybe remained in contact with their old home continent, would have left much more traces than a few vikings.
Maybe someone actually crossed over from Africa to South America, but we still have to find any convincing evidence. Until then it remains speculations. People who have worked as archaeologists in for example Mesoamerica for a long time have not found any such evidence (yet). I know personally some archaeologists who work there, one for more than 25 years.
Whether or not he proved the thesis doesn't change the fact that this man believed in the idea of African origins enough to build a boat similar to those used in the Nile Valley. The point is these ideas aren't from "Afrocentrics" and some of the most famous proponents aren't black people at all, including the Mexicans who discovered the heads to begin with.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:So again, what does this have to do with Great Zimbabwe? Seriously you aren't claiming that Europeans have not been promoting falsehoods in history and anthropology far beyond anything Africans have ever done. Not to mention all the systematic theft, murder and everything else along with that.
I never claim that Europeans did not do all those things. But there are some similarities between the cases of Zimbabwe and the Olmecs, in both cases we have members of one people who claim that they founded a civilisation that was founded by a completely different people. Great Zimbabwe was claimed in a colonial context, while todays African American claims are not colonialist per se (since A A people not physically have invaded for example Mexico), but the claims still show some kind of colonial mindset, and a disregard for Native American feelings and right to their heritage. That some people really dislike this can be seen by the reaction on the Olmec head in the Juneteenth painting. It is a matter of pride over ones ancestors and ones identity. Native Americans are not fond of white peoples distortions of their cultures either. The bitterness over the whites is of course larger than over African Americans.
So you are still trying to exclusively express outrage for Africans having theories you find to be fringe, but don't have the same outrage for the Europeans who created those theories? How does that make sense? Again, the whole racial model of anthropology started with Europeans and according to that model, any kind of "Negroid" features is a sign of African origin. Hence why the Olmec heads were seen to be proof of African origin. That underlying racial model is the basis of this theory and it solely originated with European race scientists. Because according to that same model, Native Americans are supposed to be Mongoloid and lighter skinned. I don't see how you think that this somehow is something that is the fault of Afrocentrics. And at face value, there is nothing outright that is wrong with the theory, other than lacking concrete proof. There is no reason why Africans couldn't have sailed directly from Africa to the Americas given that there are currents between the two continents. Yet you seem to be so fired up on somehow proving "Afroentrics" are at the root of this problem when again, numerous scholars from Europe, Mexico and elsewhere made this exact argument before the African scholars even knew about it. And that is just hypocritical. African scholars went with what they thought was valid evidence but unfortunately further proof was never found. At the end of the day, what is at fault is racial models that suggest that grouping people by phenotype is valid anthropology, especially when it tries to imply certain features are unique to certain groups. That entire model of anthropology and diversity is completely false. So just like it is possible Africans sailed to the Americas, it is also more possible that populations with "tropical" features have always existed in this area as it is in a tropical latitude similar to parts of Africa.
And don't get me wrong, I agree some AAs do follow outdated models such as the way someone looks makes them African. But you cannot criticize that concept without going to the source, which often is a European racial model, but not always.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: What studies are you reading that says there's a minimum of variation among SSAs?
I'm going to ask you one more time before I lose any remaining interest in this discussion.
What, in your own words, does a Niger-Congo speaking person look like? [/QB]
by minimum I meant they do not all look like the true negro stereotype there is obviously diversity and the average niger-congo person look like the people I posted.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: What studies are you reading that says there's a minimum of variation among SSAs?
I'm going to ask you one more time before I lose any remaining interest in this discussion.
What, in your own words, does a Niger-Congo speaking person look like?
by minimum I meant they do not all look like the true negro stereotype there is obviously diversity and the average niger-congo person look like the people I posted. [/QB]
Let's try this again.
So you're telling me that across the entire area of the proposed Niger-Congo language family, the people in all of those countries on average look like the people in those three photographs from one country you have refused to identify.
Have you gone mad?
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
----
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: What studies are you reading that says there's a minimum of variation among SSAs?
I'm going to ask you one more time before I lose any remaining interest in this discussion.
What, in your own words, does a Niger-Congo speaking person look like?
by minimum I meant they do not all look like the true negro stereotype there is obviously diversity and the average niger-congo person look like the people I posted.
Let's try this again.
So you're telling me that across the entire area of the proposed Niger-Congo language family, the people in all of those countries on average look like the people in those three photographs from one country you have refused to identify.
Have you gone mad? [/QB]
Wait you think niger-congo speakers are physically as diverse as afro-americans ? You clearly haven't met many SSAs if you believe this and the crowds I posted are literally from two different countries yet either for you or me they don't look much different from each other I wonder why...
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: What studies are you reading that says there's a minimum of variation among SSAs?
I'm going to ask you one more time before I lose any remaining interest in this discussion.
What, in your own words, does a Niger-Congo speaking person look like?
by minimum I meant they do not all look like the true negro stereotype there is obviously diversity and the average niger-congo person look like the people I posted.
Let's try this again.
So you're telling me that across the entire area of the proposed Niger-Congo language family, the people in all of those countries on average look like the people in those three photographs from one country you have refused to identify.
Have you gone mad?
Wait you think niger-congo speakers are physically as diverse as afro-americans ? You clearly haven't met many SSAs if you believe this and the crowds I posted are literally from three different countries yet either for you or me they don't look much different from each other I wonder why... [/QB]
Re-read my post, comprehend it, and try again.
Also quote me where I said anything about "Niger-congo speakers" in relation to African Americans.
I'll wait.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Re-read my post, comprehend it, and try again.
Also quote me where I said anything about "Niger-congo speakers" in relation to African Americans.
I'll wait. [/QB]
Like I said these pictures aren't from one country only. So yes in average that's how they look in this entire area and I'm well placed to know it since we have everything here from malian to congolese meanwhile you're not used to see them on a daily basis like me.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
What are the three specific countries they are from?
"That's how they look in this entire area"
What area?
And you still have yet to answer my original question in your own words.
I'm not going to play in ambiguities and vagueness.
Be specific. Thanks.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: If the idea that the Olmec heads were "Negroid" and therefore evidence of African origin didn't come from so-called Afrocentrics, why keep focusing on Afrocentrics as the only ones promoting the idea when they aren't? You seem to be acting like it is something that came from them when it didn't. The root of the issue is the use of European racial typologies which is where this idea of African Olmecs came from. I find it odd how you are avoiding the outrage of the whole concept of racial models that originated with Europans as part of divide and conquer but you are quick to jump on Africans using them. It is hypocritical. Europeans have spread more misinformation and pseudo science about "race" than anybody on the planet but you make it seem like this is somehow an "Afrocentric" thing or somehow that the Afrocentrics are the 'more evil' than the Europeans who raped, pillaged, conquered and robbed their way around the entire planet and created racial hierarchies everywhere they went.
I have come to adress it because they are the ones who mainly promotes these ideas TODAY. They are the ones who make those claims in books, articles, on social media. Some whites are also on that train but it is more rare today.
I have debated whites also on other social media and platforms when they spouted ideas about European Solutreens paddling to the Americas, or ancient Hebrews, or about white European ancient Peruvians, or a white Kennewick man. Also disussed with people who deny that any Native Americans were ever genocided or oppressed. So I have not only focused on Black Americans. On top of that I have protested against landtheft and exploitation in South America. I have written about such issues, raised money and tried to raise awarness about indigenous issues.
That I came in on the Black Native thing here on ES is partly because I seen some threads here which promoted such pseudo historical ideas. Even if it is just a few members who have forwarded them.
quote:Whether or not he proved the thesis doesn't change the fact that this man believed in the idea of African origins enough to build a boat similar to those used in the Nile Valley. The point is these ideas aren't from "Afrocentrics" and some of the most famous proponents aren't black people at all, including the Mexicans who discovered the heads to begin with.
I know that, but TODAY it is mainly blacks who actively promote such ideas, especially on social media, so it is why I have come to discuss those particular ideas especially with Black people. But I also challenge white people who promotes those or similar ideas.
quote:So you are still trying to exclusively express outrage for Africans having theories you find to be fringe, but don't have the same outrage for the Europeans who created those theories?
As I said I have challenged similar ideas promoted by whites, but not here on ES. I am in other fora and discussion platforms too.
I even discussed with missionaries challenging their ethnocentric and religiocentric agenda.
I am not only on ES, I am and have been active in other context too.
You just see me here on ES, you do not know about what I am doing in other contexts.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: What are the three specific countries they are from?
"That's how they look in this entire area"
What area?
And you still have yet to answer my original question in your own words.
I'm not going to play in ambiguities and vagueness.
Be specific. Thanks.
Nigeria and burkina faso and you can add this one from Togo :
The niger-congo area which represents most inhabitants of SSA. It's you who is purposely vague so that you can claim anything that looked somewhat black. Again provide a single evidence of a population that looked like the people in the pictures and who were indigenous to the mediterranean part of North Africa. Good Luck.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
@Antalas:
I am sure even with that small bit of diversity you're allowing for these Rif soldiers don't fit into your Minstrel Negro, I mean Niger-Congo person mold,
Nor these Moroccans
Or these Libyans:
[IMG]
I am done wasting my time. I will not continue with this game of charades.
In reference to your pictures, I asked for the country as you gave absolutely no context to any of the pictures you posted(see how I captioned each picture section instead of just throwing them up? I made no statements about the people in the pictures all looking the same.
You also still have not provided a single definition in your own words as to what Niger-Congo people look like.
You seem to be extrapolating where your personally live and stretching it over the entire portion of the continent that you're comfortable with. Amateurish at best, pathetic at worst.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: What are the three specific countries they are from?
"That's how they look in this entire area"
What area?
And you still have yet to answer my original question in your own words.
I'm not going to play in ambiguities and vagueness.
Be specific. Thanks.
Nigeria and burkina faso and you can add this one from Togo :
The niger-congo area which represents most inhabitants of SSA. It's you who is purposely vague so that you can claim anything that looked somewhat black. Again provide a single evidence of a population that looked like the people in the pictures and who were indigenous to the mediterranean part of North Africa. Good Luck.
I am being vague by asking you to be SPECIFIC? To enumerate the traits that make a Niger-Congo person?
So the first set of pictures was from two countries not three? Now you've added Togo.
So you chose 3 West African countries right next to each other to represent the massive region that would be covered by the Niger-Congo family.
I'm done wasting my time.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: @Antalas:
I am sure even with that small bit of diversity you're allowing for these Rif soldiers don't fit into your Minstrel Negro, I mean Niger-Congo person mold,
[/URL]
Or these Libyans:
[/URL]
I am done wasting my time. I will not continue with this game of charades.
In reference to your pictures, I asked for the country as you gave absolutely no context to any of the pictures you posted(see how I captioned each picture section instead of just throwing them up? I made no statements about the people in the pictures all looking the same.
You also still have not provided a single definition in your own words as to what Niger-Congo people look like.
You seem to be extrapolating where your personally live and stretching it over the entire portion of the continent that you're comfortable with. Amateurish at best, pathetic at worst.
Why vintage pictures ? Did you struggle to find such dark looking folks among modern NAs ? should I believe arabs and white slaves came after the 1920s ? Anyway you need to provide source on the pic you post. Non-riffians moroccan soldiers participated in the riffian war against riffians. and those libyans aren't from the mediterranean part of north africa they are as expected a mix between local or even sahelian populations and mediterranean north africans. Genetically those population aren't close nor similar to SSAs.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: What are the three specific countries they are from?
"That's how they look in this entire area"
What area?
And you still have yet to answer my original question in your own words.
I'm not going to play in ambiguities and vagueness.
Be specific. Thanks.
Nigeria and burkina faso and you can add this one from Togo :
The niger-congo area which represents most inhabitants of SSA. It's you who is purposely vague so that you can claim anything that looked somewhat black. Again provide a single evidence of a population that looked like the people in the pictures and who were indigenous to the mediterranean part of North Africa. Good Luck.
I am being vague by asking you to be SPECIFIC? To enumerate the traits that make a Niger-Congo person?
So the first set of pictures was from two countries not three? Now you've added Togo.
So you chose 3 West African countries right next to each other to represent the massive region that would be covered by the Niger-Congo family.
I'm done wasting my time.
You want me to spam tons of pictures or what ? If you disagree then feel free to post crowds from all over the area and you'll see that I'm right.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
You are literally appealing to your experience that across the entire area the average person looks like that. The burden is on YOU to prove that. Three pictures from three West African countries right next to each other is nowhere near proof. I should not have to explain this to you.
And it is rich you are demanding a source for my pictures yet did not provide any sources of your own when you posted, and I had to ask you several times.
You can find the captured Rif soldiers there, I'm sure encyclopedia britannica are not in on the afrocentrist conspiracy
Edit:
Ah so now I need to post current pics of current coastal Black north Africans today to prove older indigenous Black NA populations to your satisfaction?
Your knack for moving the goalposts is extraordinary. But at least now I hope everyone can see past that sham veneer of objectivity and detachment you've tried to maintain.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: [QB] You are literally appealing to your experience that across the entire area the average person looks like that. The burden is on YOU to prove that. Three pictures from three West African countries right next to each other is nowhere near proof. I should not have to explain this to you.
ok then tell me how I can prove it to you since you reject the crowd pictures. What do you want ? 10 pics ? videos ?
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: And it is rich you are demanding a source for my pictures yet did not provide any sources of your own when you posted, and I had to ask you several times.
You can find the captured Rif soldiers there, I'm sure encyclopedia britannica are not in on the afrocentrist conspiracy
The encyclopedia is not the original source of the pic. These are obviously not riffian prisoners their cloths don't match anything in the rif let alone their faces with one being clearly predominantly black not moroccan let alone riffian. I'm myself part riffian lol so I know how my people look.
Here vintage pictures of riffians :
These are literally our grand-fathers and great-grand fathers lol
Here modern riffians :
and it seems like you don't take tanning into account or the high contrast of those vintage pictures.
I guess none of these people are Riffians either? Maybe its all just tanning and photo tricks
I'm sure this last picture can provide at least some explanation for the modern people you posted. You know in addition to the atrocities committed by the French, among other factors too.
I'm amazed at your continued propensity to deny any admixture, mass migrations and settlements, genocides, and other historical factors in how a lot of North Africa looks now. But here you whine and complain about erasure while doing plenty of erasing yourself. I'm done arguing with you. Have a good day.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
Ok thanks for showing how dishonest and ignorant you are. Yes riffians became white in less than a few decades lol. And the woman belongs to the same ethnic group as the man he's simply tanned unlike her who stayed inside. You clearly know nothing about riffians.
More pictures on riffians :
do you at least know where riffians live ?? Literally a few km of europe. What happened to these neolithic european farmers who brought light alleles in this area thousands of years ago ? How come their modern descendents look nothing like them ? White slavery in the middle XXth century ? ....Clearly the most ridiculous and irrational claim I've seen in a while XD My own grandfather could be on these pictures lmao
"admixture, mass migrations and settlements, genocides, and other historical factors" which one ? The millions of black slaves ? What about the ancient samples being similar to modern north africans ? How come people during the 3rd millenium BC already show a profile similar to modern north africans ?
Anyway you americans should seriously stop talking about africa as a whole because the level of ignorance I'm seeing here is just baffling. You just tried to blackwash the whitest group in Morocco lol based on pictures from the early XXth century ! I suppose my grandfather is black and I'm white for no reason XD
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
In your slamming of your keyboard you haven't read anything I actually typed and that's par for the course for you. Where did I say that Riffians became white in just a few decades? Or that none of those people were from the Rif area?
And nothing I have said has even come close to the ridiculous and frankly stupid claim of yours that people from Nigeria down to South Africa all look mostly the same.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: In your slamming of your keyboard you haven't read anything I actually typed and that's par for the course for you. Where did I say that Riffians became white in a few decades? Or that none of those people were from the Rif area?
And nothing I have said has even come close to the ridiculous and frankly stupid claim of yours that people from Nigeria down to South Africa all look mostly the same.
I'm pretty sure If I post crowds from every niger-congo country you wouldn't be able to differentiate them. So no it's clearly not as ridiculous as someone who believes a population 30km away from europe was black in the 1930s then became white a few decades later for no apparent reasons.
Anyway you completely deviate from your initial point. So where is this evidence of a black indigenous population in mediterranean north africa ? Like I said you literally avoid all the datas that does not support your point of view. All you have is "look here this X ancient author said in his poem that moors are black".
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
So you admit to basically putting words in my mouth and attacking a strawman. Got it.
I'm still waiting for an actual list of the traits that make a black person.
The goalpost shifting never ends with you eh? So whether I post ancient geographers or "vintage photos" is really besides the point. You have put your own ignorance and petulant childishness on display which has been far more useful.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: So you admit to basically putting words in my mouth and attacking a strawman. Got it.
I'm still waiting for an actual list of the traits that make a black person.
The goalpost shifting never ends with you eh? So whether I post ancient geographers or "vintage photos" is really besides the point. You have put your own ignorance and petulant childishness on display which has been far more useful.
I already talked about the traits of a black person : frizzy hair combined with black skin and negroid features typically found in most populations in sub-saharan africa (horners are not concerned since they have important amount of west eurasian ancestry making them different physically and clustering closer to people in the middle east and north africa).
You project your own american labels upon ancient concepts and your vintage pictures either show tanned riffians or literally non riffian people and you don't even see how ridiculous and retarded your point is lol. If my grand-father and its father are black how come I'm not black ? I'm done XD
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
So lying, goalpost moving,strawmen, histrionics and ad hominem because you're too cowardly to just admit this is what your concept of a Black person boils down too.
Go sleep it off.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Thousand years old cosmopolitan East African list of blacks
"And they said, 'The number of blacks is greater than the number of whites, because most of those who are counted as whites are comprised of peoples from Persia, the mountains, Khurasan, Rome, Slavia, France, and Iberia, and anything apart from them is insignificant.
But among the blacks are counted * Zanj * Ethiopians * Fezzani * Berbers * Copts * Nubians * Zaghawa * Moors
the people of * Sind * the Hindus * the Qamar * the Dabila * the IndoChinese
and those beyond them. The sea is more extensive than the land, and the islands in the sea between IndoChina and Zanzibar are full of blacks, like the * Sarandib * Kalah * Amal * Zabij and its islands up to Hindustan and IndoChina
Kabul and those coasts.
"They said, 'The Arabs come from us -- not from the whites -- because of the similarity of their colour to ours. The Hindus are more yellow in color than the Arabs, yet they are counted among the black peoples."
From the When & why did they stop being black? Says who? thread. Please accept my most humble apology for the bantering tone therein 🙏
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Black people's (particularly in America) history, culture and identify was marginalized and destroyed. So in the end Black American who believe this can't be blamed. This is the part you don't get.
Ish, Antalass is just mad because the fallacy of "racial features" is busting his false claims! If features on ancient Indigenous Americans like broad noses and broad lips does not make them "negroid" then what are we to make of "caucasoid" features on Africans both North Africans and Southern Africans on the opposite pole of the continent? He is bankrupt.
Yep.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
Anyway, moving a bit closer back to topic...
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Again, this is why the so-called "debate" or "battle" over the black identity of Egypt is just a microcosm of has been going on in Western academia for decades. No part of African soil is safe from the Euronut supremacists and I hope that even negrophobes like Antalas can see this.
We've all noticed some segments of the human genetics fandom being obsessed with the idea of back-migrations into Africa, even going so far as to attribute African uniparental haplogroups like Y-DNA E and mtDNA L3 to them. Of course, back-migrations did happen, but the preoccupation with them convinces me that Hamiticism remains alive and well in the genetics community.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Getting back to the topic...
From Bad Archaeology on Great Zimbabwe European discovery During the seventeenth century, the Portuguese has begun to dislodge the Arabs as the principal international traders on the coast of Mozambique. As they did, they began to hear stories of a king called the Monomotapa who ruled from a city called Symbãoe or Zimbãoche, some distance to the east. According to some versions of these stories, the Monomotapa’s palace was covered with plates of gold, but in 1531, Viçente Pegado, Captain of the garrison at Sofala, wrote about ruined dry-stone fortresses, a tower more than ‘twelve fathoms’ high and mines and mentioned that Symbãoe meant ‘court’ in the local language. In 1552, the Portuguese historian João de Barros (1496-1570) conjectured that it was the site of Axum, a city of the Queen of Sheba. The stories were heard second-hand from Arab merchants who traded with the peoples of the interior, but the Portuguese merchants did not travel inland.
In 1871, as Europeans began to explore the interior of southern Africa, a Swabian geologist and explorer, Karl Gottlieb Mauch (1837-1875), set out to examine the semi-legendary ruins of Monomotapa that he had heard about from the writings of a German missionary named Alexander Merensky (1837-1918), published in 1867. Setting out with an acquaintance, the ivory collector George Philips, Mauch was able to persuade a local guide to take them to the ruins of Zimbabwe. The ruins were too overgrown to examine closely, although the explorers did meet an elderly local, Babareke, who told them that he was the son of the last high priest of a cult that had once sacrificed oxen in the ruins. Other than this, Mauch and Philips were unable to learn anything about the place.
Great Zimbabwe: the site The site of Great Zimbabwe lies in the broad valley of the River Mapudzi, a tributary of the River Sabi, which enters the Indian Ocean to the south of Sofala. The landscape is granite, with small hillocks and crags, which exfoliates (cracks away) from exposed rock faces as temperatures change through the year. This provides a convenient building material, used by the builders of Great Zimbabwe and nearby sites. Soapstone, found 24 km (15 miles) away, was useful for carving, while slate and quartz were also imported to the site. The ruins of Great Zimbabwe sit on top of a steep-sided hillock and cover an area of 0.65 km2 (about 0.25 square miles). The largest structure is an elliptical enclosure (sometimes called the Temple, the Elliptical Building or the Great Enclosure), with the Acropolis at the top of the hill, 550 m (600 yards) to the north; there are other ruins in the valley bottom to the north and east. As the Arab merchants had told their Portuguese rivals, the buildings were of dry stone construction, although the walls were plastered.
The controversy begins Like so many European explorers, Mauch published a book about his explorations when he returned to Germany; also, like so many Europeans encountering strange ruins, he tried to explain them in terms of known civilisations and cultures. He thought that Babareke had described a Semitic ritual and that the ruins were those of the biblical Ophir, the site of King Solomon’s fabled mines. One of the ruined buildings, he reasoned, was a copy of Solomon’s Temple, while the great oval enclosure (which he called Zimbabye) was a copy of the palace where the Queen of Sheba had stayed in Jerusalem. He believed that this meant that she had lived at Zimbabwe, built by Phoenician architects.
The inevitable looting follows Mauch’s book caused a sensation in Europe and made the ruins an attraction for treasure-hunters, keen to locate Solomon’s supposed treasures. When Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902) established Southern Rhodesia in 1889 (basically a private corporation set up to administer a huge territory at considerable profit), the ruins were part of the estate of the South African settlers Willi and Harry Posselt. Willi had tried to remove a soapstone carving from one of the ruins in 1888, but was driven off by locals. According to one version of the story, in 1889, he cut a carved soapstone bird from its pillar in return for blankets and trinkets offered to a local Chief, Mugabe, and sold it to Cecil Rhodes, while yet another version claims that he hid others, intending to return to the site to collect them later. He subsequently published an account, The Early Days of Mashonaland and a Visit to Great Zimbabwe Ruins, bemoaning the lack of treasure on the site.
Archaeological excavations at Great Zimbabwe and misinterpretations In 1891, the archaeologist James Theodore Bent (1852-1897) spent two months excavating in the ruins and was able to remove the soapstone birds, which were taken to the museum at Cape Town (they were returned to Zimbabwe in 1981). In the early years of the Southern Rhodesia colony, an Ancient Ruins Company was set up, with the express purpose of prospecting the ruins for treasure. Franchises were sold by the administrator of Mashonaland, Leander Starr Jameson (1853-1917), for forty or so sites, which yielded little more than 5 kg of gold but which destroyed their stratigraphic integrity.
Bent concluded from his excavations that the site had been built by Sabaeans, Phoenicians or another Semitic people, just as Mauch had conjectured. This was based on the presence of soapstone phalli, the shape of the conical tower and the oval shape of the Great Enclosure, which resembles a building at Ma’rib (مأرب, Yemen) identified as the harîm of Bilqîs, the Queen of Sheba. He suggested that Great Zimbabwe was identical with both the biblical Ophir and the Punt of Ancient Egyptian texts and that it had continued to flourish under Arab influence into the Middle Ages. He believed that a coin of the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161 CE) found in a mine-shaft at Mutale (Zimbabwe, Umtali before 1982) strengthened his case. unfortunately, it seems that this is all we know about the coin.
Later explorers and archaeologists concurred with Bent’s opinion. The first was Karl (or Carl) Peters (1856-1918), the creator of German Tanganyika, who had never visited the site but who had explored ruins further east in 1899-1900. His racist attitudes (he referred to the population of Tanganyika as “sickly and useless rubbish” and believed that they should either be used by white settlers as forced labour or exterminated) clearly coloured his attitudes to who might have built the ruins.
Finally, in 1902, the new legislative council of Southern Rhodesia passed a law protecting the sites and a curator, the journalist Richard Nicklin Hall (1853-1914), was appointed to oversee Great Zimbabwe itself. Hall spent two years excavating the great enclosure, which he published in detail. He believed that he could distinguish two occupations – one sun-worshipping Semitic (perhaps Himyarite Arabs), the other medieval Arab – separated by a long period of abandonment. Hall avowedly wished to free the site “from the filth and decadence of the Kaffir occupation”, deliberately removing anything that might link the site with local African peoples and clearing some twelve feet (1.8 m) of deposits in an operation that was described by a visiting archaeologist as “reckless blundering… worse than anything I have ever seen”. As a result, Hall was dismissed from his post...
You can read the rest for yourselves.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Here are some excerpts from Alexander Galloway's assessment of skeletal remains from Mapungubwe (1937) that date to the time period of Great Zimbabwe:
^ Note that "Capoid"/"Boskopid" is viewed as racially distinct from "negroid". The same way North and Northeast Africans are "caucasoid" and distinct from "negroid"; however the distinctions are not in totatlity since Galloway admits many traits being held in common.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: One can always discuss how serious of an issue it is, but obviously there are Native Americans, but also African Americans, whites and Latinos who think it is worth discussing and who write books and articles, or post on social media to refute the claims made by fringe groups who claim that the precolumbian American cultures were created by black/African people. Obviously those who adress these questions think they are important enough to spend some time on.
You are using circular arguments, arguments that have been refuted already. This is a waste of time. You don't want to get the root of the matter, which is white professors and authors started with these claims. School text books have been written by white Americans since the education system started.
They refused to acknowledge African history and African Americans history and contributions. They now are arguing over Critical Race Theory", which once again is ignoring actual and factual history. They still refuse to acknowledge actual and factual history, so some people started digging and create their own narratives.
You love to do a lot of victim blaming. And I will dissect your post, so you can see where you are wrong and suffer from a low EQ.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Do you know the exact number of African Americans who claims that Black peoples were in the Americas in precolumbian times? Do you know the exact numbers of African Americans that try to refute those ideas? Do you know the exact number of Native Americans who actively, on social media or in other ways try to refute those notions? I suppose you do not know. That is why you can not say that the matter is without importance. It becomes just an opinion. But if there are people that find it worthwile to adress these questions it means that it is important for them. And if some Native Americans worry about that others in different ways ty to distort their history, it is worth discussing.
I don't have to know the exact number, because there's not such thing. It has to do with understanding and knowing a people. Black communities all over USA identify as African American, which some embracing their Native American heritage. 99.9% of the time Black Americans speak of their 400 year history and Africa.
The Africana curriculum doesn't claim anything you accuse Black Americans supposedly doing.
You speak on a people you don't even know and understand.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Here we go with the personal insults. Not very mature behavior. You seem to get worked up about these issues. Still you seem not to be able to grasp that some Native Americans can get upset when some Black people try to distort their past or question their identity. If you have any EQ it seems very selective.
It's not an insult. It's a psychoanalysis observation. You have this strong form of cognitive dissonance.
It's immature when you keep using the same debunk circular arguments. You have no reference points, no details, but for the same refuted arguments you've already made prior.
I bet in your next post you are going to use the exact same arguments.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Do you not think that any Native American peoples where annihilated? So the Yahi people of California where not annihilated? How came that the last one of them, Ishi, saw the rest of his people being killed by the whites? Did he dream that? Which are their black descendants? So the Susquehannocks did not disappear? Where they black? So you think the original Pequots were black? What about the Natchez, did not the French crush them in 1731 so only 400 survived whereof most of them were sold as slaves to the West Indies (a few survivors took refuge among other peoples). Where they originally Black? Where the Beothuk in Canada black?an doubt if that painter ever saw any real Native Americans either.
Most Native Americans in the North of America have been annihilated. That the point I am making all the while. And they have been replaced mostly by 5 dollar white pretendians. That's the point here, smart-ass.
I am not thinking anything. I am asking you what they looked like. Black Americans who show these old 14th 15th 16th century images claim that they are they descants of these dark skinned Native Americans. It could be or could not be true. It's not my place to say they aren't.
Talking about California again and I quote:
quote:Los Angeles, California has a lot more Black history than most people realize. The city was founded in 1781 by a group of 44 Mexican settlers, and 26 of them were of African descent. Pío de Jesús Pico, who was of both African and American descent, was one of the first governors of the area that is now known as the city of Los Angeles. In fact, he served as the governor of Alta California twice and was even a councilman before his untimely death.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: About Blacks claiming to be descendants of now extinct tribes: Are there any archaeological remains, or DNA evidence that any of these peoples where Black/African before they first came in contact with Europeans (and Africans)?
Lot of these people do not believe and trust these companies, and the reason is because of Americas racist systemic history.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Do you question the genocide of Native Americans, are you a history revisionist like those people who deny the holocaust?
I don't know if these people deny it. But how many pure Native Americans are there as of now?
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: What about it? Whites may have started it but there are blacks that uphold outdated ideas. They ought to know better. If they promote an outdated, false narrativ that was started by now dead white people, how is it not their fault still promoting such ideas? It is weird, one does not so often here claIms from African Americans that the ancient Egyptians where white, which also is an idé first promoted by white people. But the idé that precolumbian Native Americans where black was obviously more easy to digest for some African Americans.
So now it's not on whites who started these ideas? lol
See, you don't understand how the American social structure works, which includes the school curriculum and school textbooks. This is part of the integration system, which Black Americans seek validation by the dominant society.
Once you understand this you will understand why some of these people are making these claims.
It was certain whites planting these ideas in Black Americans, because the American school curriculum and history school textbooks is written by white people. And has been done so for decades.
Jungle Brothers - Acknowledge your own history (1988)
quote:[Verse 1: Afrika] My forefather was a king He wore fat gold chains and fat ruby rings Nobody believes this to be true Maybe it's because my eyes ain't blue You ain't gonna find it in your history book Come here, young blood, and take a look And dig down deep inside this hard cover Don't you know that you was bought, brother? All you read about is slavery Never 'bout the Black man's bravery You look at the pictures and all they show is African people with bones in they noses That ain't true, that's a lie You didn't get that from my lemon pie
[Verse 2: Mike G] Yeah, I cut class, I got a D 'Cause History meant nothing to me Except a definite nap That's why I often sat in the back I'd talk to girls or write a rhyme 'Cause I didn't know all times are Black man's times When I was young, my mama told me stories Of Black peoples' fight to bring us glory I used to think these were stories to put me to sleep But now I know mama's talk wasn't cheap I know Africa's for Africans And history's the blood of every woman and man
[Verse 3: Afrika & Mike G] Page one, page two, page three And still no signs of me Yeah, so I looked into the table of the contents (Uh) They wrote a little thing about us in the projects (What?) The only history we make is if we kill somebody Rape somebody, but other than that, we're nobody Speaking like a brother living in the jungle I know I was here first, but I remain humble Now it's time to rekindle the fire A tribe of young brothers with the eye of the tiger Acknowledge your own, we have a home Put on this earth to live and roam Christopher chose to explore Discovered America! Yeah, sure He thought the planet was square Traveled many places, but we already had been there We left tracks, backtracked back First civilization, you know where that was found at Looking for the true Black days of glory But you're reading history, that's his story
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I do not know exactly who is running the Facebook group, many people on it are anonymous.
Ok. Anyone can make an account and pose as whatever.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Native Americans on social media that protested against the false narratives have many times become harrassed, so now several of them prefer to remain anonymous. Some has been spammed by hateful messages, others have been hanged out on social media with name and photos, some have gotten angry phone calls.
Are these actual Native Americans, or 5 dollar Indians, I mean pretendians? What did these anonymous Indians say about the 5 dollar pretendians?
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: People like the archaeologist "Navajorocks" (I must look up his real name, I forgot it) who made a couple of videos questioning or refuting the Black precolumbian Native narrative has been harrassed and his account reported.
They probably don't take him serious, because of his appearance.
I have never been harassed when I spoke up against any of these claims. And when I do I do show images of Amerindians native the South America and other reputable data.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I know some of the Native Americans that debate these issues by their real names. We have had e-mail contact, video chats, messenger groups and so on. But do not ask me to reveal their names here. I do not want to contribute to them being harrassed.
If so one can put this forward to the authorities. As should they report the 5 dollar Indians who steal billions each year. Problem is that the school curriculum is authoritative as well. So where does it begin and where does it end?
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I know one woman telling about her trips to Mexico and how proud she was over her ancestors achievements. She was called a wh*re, and her Native identity was questioned by some aggressive "Wabos" or extreme "Afrocentrics" or whatever one wants to call them.
People who claim this extreme of attachment to the Americas (for thousands of years), these people are not Afrocentrics. Afrocentrism is Africana and in Africana theres not such discourse. Wabos have nothing to do with Africana and do not claim African root and origin.
So that argument makes no sense. And I suggest you no further bring this up in the future.
If one is being harassed one should inform the platform, and even can put it forward to the authorities when it's life treating.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I was among other groups in a group where we refuted specific claims made by the fringe people and where we searched for the origin to some of the fake or mislabeled images they often post.
I have been too, so what's your point?
quote:The pictures you show, are not made by black Americans, you already know that. They are made by Europeans whereof many never visited America. They often mixed different elements from both Africa and America (and some totally free fantasies) to create allegorical or pedagogical images often aimed at people who also never visited America.
Of course I know that it was not made by Back Americans, or any other Black people. It was a rhetorical question.
Some of the people indeed didn't travel, but others did and could have confirmed they images to be false or correct. Also, where is your evidence that these people based these images on allegories?
There's also documented text by people what they've witnessed. Percentage wise, to what degree are those images close to reality?
The quintessential question becomes, who's to blame now?
In some way I can understand why a people who have lost everything seek for correlations. Especially when they have a long history in that region.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Most Europeans were more acquainted with Black Africans so they often used them as a model for these pictures and paintings.
Interesting argument and very welcoming.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Interestingly enough the oldest European painting with what at least some experts believe are Native Americans show them as white. But one can doubt if that painter ever saw any real Native Americans either.
I haven't seen those, but I do know of these 2022 theories, where white scholars claim to be the indigenous people to the Americas.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: ----
At this point you are just saying anything, although it makes zero sense.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: So you admit to basically putting words in my mouth and attacking a strawman. Got it.
I'm still waiting for an actual list of the traits that make a black person.
The goalpost shifting never ends with you eh? So whether I post ancient geographers or "vintage photos" is really besides the point. You have put your own ignorance and petulant childishness on display which has been far more useful.
I already talked about the traits of a black person : frizzy hair combined with black skin and negroid features typically found in most populations in sub-saharan africa (horners are not concerned since they have important amount of west eurasian ancestry making them different physically and clustering closer to people in the middle east and north africa).
You project your own american labels upon ancient concepts and your vintage pictures either show tanned riffians or literally non riffian people and you don't even see how ridiculous and retarded your point is lol. If my grand-father and its father are black how come I'm not black ? I'm done XD
Ok, we get it and yes you are done.
West Africa's Sahara-Sahel Region
"The half of West Africa you don't see -the people of the Sahara-Sahel region, principally Mauritania, Senegal, Mali, and Niger."
quote: Thus, not only did Nubia have a prominent role in the origin of Ancient Egypt, it was also a key area for the origin of the entire African pastoral tradition.
~Gatto M. 2009.
The Nubian Pastoral Culture as Link between Egypt and Africa: A View from the Archaeological Record Egypt in its African Context: BAR S2204- Archaeopress. 21-29
quote: Moreover, although the Nubian and Egyptian samples formed one well-distributed group, the Egyptian samples clustered in the upper left region, while the Nubians concentrated in the lower right of the plot. One line can be drawn that would separate the closely dispersed Egyptians and Nubians. The predynastic Egyptian samples clustered together (Badari and Naqada), while Gizeh most closely groups with the Lisht sample.
~Godde K.
An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development? Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404. Epub 2009 Sep 19.
quote: More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and that the Predynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently distinct to consider either non-indigenous (Zakrzewski, 2007). The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002).
~AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007), Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528 Introduction to Research at Naqada Region
quote:“The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002)
~D. Usai, S. Salvatori, T. Jakob & R. David The Al Khiday Cemetery in Central Sudan and its “Classic/Late Meroitic” Period Graves Journal of African Archaeology, Volume 12 (2), 2014, pages 183-204, DOI 10.3213/2191-5784-10254
quote: Bivariate analyses distinguish Jebel Sahaba from European and circumpolar samples, but do not tend to segregate them from recent North or sub-Saharan African samples
~T. W. Holliday* 2013 Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample: Limb Proportion Evidence
quote: As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or "Negroid") groups
[...]
This evidence suggests that the process of state formation itself may have been mainly an indigenous process, but that it may have occurred in association with in-migration to the Abydos region of the Nile Valley. This potential in-migration may have occurred particularly during the EDyn and OK.
quote: Figure 1: Images of North African prehistoric rock and cave paintings. From (a, b) Swimmer’s Cave (Wadi Sura, southern Egypt), (c) the Ennedi massif (northeastern Chad) and (d) Zolat el Hammad, Wadi Howar (northern Sudan).
Paleoclimate and archaeological evidence tells us that, 11,000-5,000 years ago, the Earth's slow orbital 'wobble' transformed today's Sahara desert to a land covered with vegetation and lakes.
quote:"They clearly show that, despite the presence of domesticates, fish predominate in the animal bone assemblages. In this sense, there is continuity with the earlier Holocene occupation from the Fayum, starting ca. 7350 BC. Domesticated plants and animals appear first from approximately 5400 BC. The earliest possible evidence for domesticates in Egypt are the very controversial domesticated cattle from the 9th/8th millennium BC in the Nabta Playa-Bir Kiseiba area."
~Veerle Linseele et al. PLoS One. 2014; 9(10): e108517. Published online 2014 Oct 13. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108517 PMCID: PMC4195595 New Archaeozoological Data from the Fayum “Neolithic” with a Critical Assessment of the Evidence for Early Stock Keeping in Egypt
quote:Some groups (using cemeteries E-01-2, E-03-1, E-03-2, and E-09-4) show some affiliation with sub-Saharan Africans, readable in the pottery assemblage and other grave goods, as well as some morphological features (Irish 2010; Kobusiewicz and Kabaciński 2010; Czekaj-Zastawny and Kabaciński 2015). Ethnographic data offer support by showing how radically different children are treated in various African societies (Gottlieb 2004a, b; Pawlik 2004; Kabaciński et al. 2018).
(Agnieszka Czekaj-Zastawny & Tomasz Goslar & Joel D. Irish & Jacek Kabaciński, Gebel Ramlah—a Unique Newborns’ Cemetery of the Neolithic Sahara, African Archaeological Review volume 35, pages393–405(2018))
"West Eurasian ancestry"?
quote:قالوا و كان واد عبد المصلب اعشرة السادة دلما ضخما نظر اليهم علمر بن الطفيل يطوفون كانهم جمال جون فقال؛ بهولأْ تمنع السدانه و كان عبد الله بن عباس ادام صحما ولد اب طالب اشرف الخلق و هم سود و ادم و دلم
there are black tribes among the Arabs, such as the Banu Sulaim bin Mansur, and that all the peoples settled in the Harra, besides the Banu Sulaim are black.
(Al-Jahiz (776-869): Al-Fakhar al-Sudan min al-Abyadh)
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Here is a more recent study on Iron Age Zimbabweans:
Assessment of human skeletal remains from the Penhalonga district, Zimbabwe (2020) by Maryna Steyn & Anja Meyer Abstract The Nyanga complex is situated in the Penhalonga district of Manicaland province in northern Zimbabwe. According to various archival and modern sources, six skeletons were discovered in this region in the 1930s and are supposedly curated in the Raymond A. Dart Collection of Archaeological Humans Remains at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. In an attempt to locate these skeletons and associate them with the sites, archival records, skeletal and faunal analyses and radiocarbon dating were used to gain more information on the bioarchaeology of the region. Only three of the skeletons could be located in the Dart Collection, two of which could be reliably radiocarbon dated, one from the Hill of Paintings to before the beginning of the Nyanga complex, the other, from Mkondwe, to most probably contemporary with it. The latter shows evidence of dental modification similar to that seen in individuals recovered from the Monk’s Kop site, situated to the north of Zimbabwe. This study forms part of a larger attempt to bring context to skeletons housed in archaeological collections because of their value as sources of information on the past.
Discussion Of the six skeletons from the Penhalonga region mentioned in various texts, three are currently present in the Raymond A. Dart Archaeological Human Remains Collection (Table 1). As far as the three missing skeletons are concerned, it seems that one was deaccessioned; another skeleton that is mentioned in the catalogue comprises only animal bones and of the third no information could be obtained. Surprisingly, given its excellent preservation, Skeleton A293 was the oldest of the skeletons and can loosely be associated with a hill with many rock paintings. The remains were those of a 30–45 year-old female individual, radiocarbon-dated (730 ± 59 BP, cal. AD1228–1396; IT-C-1910) to just before, or to the early stages of, the Nyanga complex (AD 1300–1800). This individual could therefore be more closely related temporally to the Ziwa tradition. Soper (2013) mentions a similar burial in a rock-shelter on the northwestern slopes of Mount Ziwa. Here, the grave was said to have been dug into the Later Stone Age layers beneath, but was found in a similar burial position, i.e. semi-flexed on its right side. It is known that early farming communities associated with the Ziwa tradition utilised rock-shelters, many of which overlay much older Stone Age deposits (Manyanga and Shenjere 2012). Of the three skeletons in the collection, only A387 could be firmly associated with a pit circle. It was therefore important that a radiocarbon date was obtained for it, but unfortunately the remains were so poorly preserved that this was not possible. Skeleton A292, a (possibly female) adult, was found some distance from pit-structure M10. Based on its location Martin (1937) suggested that the grave was most probably secondary, belonging to the modern-day Manyika people. Local informants, however, denied this and Soper(2013) mentions that it seems more likely that the remains were buried during the abandonment of the homestead. The radiocarbon date obtained for A292 (380 ± 44 BP, cal. AD1458–1636; IT-C-1772) confirms its temporal association with the Nyanga complex and more specifically to the period associated with the construction of the pit-structures (AD 1500–1800). A292 showed dental modification in the form of V-shaped filing of the lower, central incisors. Unfortunately, all of the upper incisors were lost after death, so they could not be examined for possible modification. Dental modification is a practice with deep roots, occurring in Africa and many other parts of the world (e.g. Singer 1953; Pindborg1969; Halestrap 1971; Claparols 1975; Van Reenen 1978; Morris 1989; Jones 1992). These modifications take on a variety of forms and are brought about by intentional filing, chipping or removal of teeth, or sometimes even decoration with inlays (Milner and Larsen 1991). Although the meaning and purpose of modification is not always clear, it may be that it serves as personal ornamentation or demonstrates an affiliation with a specific group (e.g. Van Reenen 1986; Fitting 1989; Morris 1998). Usually, a specific pattern of modification is found in a group. For example, dental modification at Mapungubwe/K2 in the Shashe-Limpopo Confluence Area of northern South Africa was done by filing the upper central incisors to form a V-shaped gap mesially (Steyn 1994). Modifications are usually found in both sexes and they are mostly performed around the age of puberty (Van Reenen 1986; Morris 1998). Dental modification is, of course, a risky practice as it may cause the permanent loss of the tooth, especially if the pulp is exposed. The extent of the modification patterns may vary from simple filing away of mesial edges, as in the case of A292, to consider-able alterations such as the removal of most of the incisors as in the case of an Early Iron Age individual from Broederstroom, South Africa (De Villiers 1981, unpublished report; Morris 1992: WA 33 Burial 4). A similar pattern of V-shaped filing of the lower central incisors was also seen in female skeletons from Monk’s Kop, a broadly thirteenth-century site from northern Zimbabwe (Swanepoel 2015). The apparently gendered nature of this form of dental modification is similar to that seen here and should be followed up when assessing skeletons from the Zimbabwe region in future. Unfortunately, only one of the skeletons (A293) was complete enough to conduct a FORDISC craniometric analysis. This female aligned with the Teita from East Africa, which is not surprising given the area of discovery. This was followed by “Bushman”/Khoesan, with the skull being *the most different from the Dogon of West Africa.* With such a small sample, it is difficult to comment on health, diet and disease. All that can be said is that there was no evidence of dental decay, but that the considerable dental wear suggests a diet high in abrasive materials. Results of the analysis of faunal remains associated with the Penhalonga and Mkondwe sites suggest the presence of a possible dwarf cattle species similar to that found at other Nyanga sites such as Muozi (Plug et al.1997; Soper 2002). The presence of dwarf cattle species further supports the argument that these pit-structures were used to house cattle. This research was brought about by the need to better value, preserve and curate archaeological skeletons that are housed in existing collections. As is the case with many other such collections, the Dart collection houses many smaller collections of which very little are known. In a recent paper by Steyn et al.(2019) it was shown that these seemingly unimportant remains can provide significant information and that we need to do all that we can to provide context and information, especially incases such as this where there are unpublished documents that may be lost if they are not properly looked after. Future research avenues to be considered could include aDNA analysis for the two more complete skeletons in order to elucidate their population relationships better. More sophisticated craniometric analyses involving A293, probably in comparison with the Monk’s Kop and other Zimbabwean material, should also be considered. In conclusion, the Raymond A. Dart Archaeological Human Remains Collection currently holds three skeletons that can be associated with the Penhalonga region of northern Zimbabwe. Unfortunately, the only skeleton firmly associated with the pit-structures was too poorly preserved to obtain a radiocarbon date. The radiocarbon date for A292, however, places the individual in the temporal period associated with the construction of the Nyanga complex’s pit-structures, while A293 predates this period. Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Getting back to the topic...
Yes, please continue this lecture.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: If the idea that the Olmec heads were "Negroid" and therefore evidence of African origin didn't come from so-called Afrocentrics, why keep focusing on Afrocentrics as the only ones promoting the idea when they aren't? You seem to be acting like it is something that came from them when it didn't. The root of the issue is the use of European racial typologies which is where this idea of African Olmecs came from. I find it odd how you are avoiding the outrage of the whole concept of racial models that originated with Europans as part of divide and conquer but you are quick to jump on Africans using them. It is hypocritical. Europeans have spread more misinformation and pseudo science about "race" than anybody on the planet but you make it seem like this is somehow an "Afrocentric" thing or somehow that the Afrocentrics are the 'more evil' than the Europeans who raped, pillaged, conquered and robbed their way around the entire planet and created racial hierarchies everywhere they went.
I have come to adress it because they are the ones who mainly promotes these ideas TODAY. They are the ones who make those claims in books, articles, on social media. Some whites are also on that train but it is more rare today.
I have debated whites also on other social media and platforms when they spouted ideas about European Solutreens paddling to the Americas, or ancient Hebrews, or about white European ancient Peruvians, or a white Kennewick man. Also disussed with people who deny that any Native Americans were ever genocided or oppressed. So I have not only focused on Black Americans. On top of that I have protested against landtheft and exploitation in South America. I have written about such issues, raised money and tried to raise awarness about indigenous issues.
So according to you, whites no longer spread misinformation and lies about history and anthropology? That is purely hypocritical especially in this day and age of social media where the internet is full of misinformation and half truths of all stripes, but according to you it is only black people that do it. And somehow that absolves Europeans of their history of lies and distortion? I am not saying that you have to agree anything that isn't based on fact or isn't a reasonable theory based on facts, but you are acting like this is a blacks only issue. When the fact is that Europeans created these racial models and those models are still being used by many within and without of academia in many ways. So if you are going to criticize the use of such models then you have to start with the Europeans by making this model in the first place and spreading it.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: That I came in on the Black Native thing here on ES is partly because I seen some threads here which promoted such pseudo historical ideas. Even if it is just a few members who have forwarded them.
quote:Whether or not he proved the thesis doesn't change the fact that this man believed in the idea of African origins enough to build a boat similar to those used in the Nile Valley. The point is these ideas aren't from "Afrocentrics" and some of the most famous proponents aren't black people at all, including the Mexicans who discovered the heads to begin with.
I know that, but TODAY it is mainly blacks who actively promote such ideas, especially on social media, so it is why I have come to discuss those particular ideas especially with Black people. But I also challenge white people who promotes those or similar ideas.
Thor Heyerdahl died is what happened, but he accomplished what he set out to do which is to show it was possible to sail across the ocean in a reed raft. And there are others that have taken up where he left off, which means that plenty of Europeans and others still see this theory as a possibility. That doesn't mean evidence wont be found of African contact or that everybody outside of Afrocentrics have abandoned the idea altogether. Also, as far as serious African scholarship goes, the last person to promote this theory was Ivan Van Sertima who is also dead. Meaning that in general, the theory is still a theory but the evidence for direct African contact has not been found at least that I know of so there isn't a lot of scholarship on it any longer. It is still a theory, but to this day, it was never an Afrocentric theory, regardless of whatever anonymous Afrocentrics you claim to be promoting it. And why are you talking about anonymous internet Afrocentrics anyway? Who introduced Olmecs into this thread?
quote:So you are still trying to exclusively express outrage for Africans having theories you find to be fringe, but don't have the same outrage for the Europeans who created those theories?
As I said I have challenged similar ideas promoted by whites, but not here on ES. I am in other fora and discussion platforms too.
I even discussed with missionaries challenging their ethnocentric and religiocentric agenda.
I am not only on ES, I am and have been active in other context too.
You just see me here on ES, you do not know about what I am doing in other contexts.
Obviously it isn't only so called Afrocentrics on the internet who promote things that aren't true. To act like this is solely an issue with "Afrocentrics" is the problem and beyond that trying to lump all AAs or African scholars into the same boat is the problem.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote: So according to you, whites no longer spread misinformation and lies about history and anthropology? That is purely hypocritical especially in this day and age of social media where the internet is full of misinformation and half truths of all stripes, but according to you it is only black people that do it. And somehow that absolves Europeans of their history of lies and distortion? I am not saying that you have to agree anything that isn't based on fact or isn't a reasonable theory based on facts, but you are acting like this is a blacks only issue. When the fact is that Europeans created these racial models and those models are still being used by many within and without of academia in many ways. So if you are going to criticize the use of such models then you have to start with the Europeans by making this model in the first place and spreading it.
The myth about Black Olmecs (and other alleged black precolumbian American civilisations) is mainly spread by black people today, even if there are exceptions. Especially on social media. But of course there are misinformation from whites about many other subjects. All peoples are able to spread misinformation about different things, even if the subjects vary.
quote: Thor Heyerdahl died is what happened, but he accomplished what he set out to do which is to show it was possible to sail across the ocean in a reed raft. And there are others that have taken up where he left off, which means that plenty of Europeans and others still see this theory as a possibility. That doesn't mean evidence wont be found of African contact or that everybody outside of Afrocentrics have abandoned the idea altogether. Also, as far as serious scholarship goes, the last person to promote this theory was Ivan Van Sertima who is also dead. Meaning that in general, the theory is still a theory but the evidence for direct African contact has not been found at least that I know of so there isn't a lot of scholarship on it any longer. It is still a theory, but to this day, it was never an Afrocentric, regardless of whatever anonymous Afrocentrics you claim to be promoting it. And why are you talking about anonymous internet Afrocentrics anyway? Who introduced Olmecs into this thread?
Thor Heyerdahl did a lot of things, some things had more scientific credibility than others. Yes he died, and he belonged to a an older generation. Seems that most archaeologists, historians, linguistics and others do not support all of his ideas. Ivan van Sertima is well known and among those who work with American archaeology, anthropology and genetics (I know personally people who have worked with archaeology in the Americas for many years, one in 25 years) his ideas are not directly accepted. Already many years ago there were written articles that refuted many of his claims.
There is a lot of archaeology done, especially in Mesoamerica, and an African presence would have been discovered at least in some of the meticulous archaeological and anthropological investigations and research that is conducted there. But of course there are speculations, there will always be.
Then it of course differ which kind of speculations, and how it goes from speculation to pure fabrication like in this video. There are a lot of over the top stuff on the net and in books and articles by certain authors.
Some of the "Afrocentrics" (in the lack of better names) are maybe not so anonymous, like Clyde Winters who is well known online (also here on ES with his Mande Olmecs). And people like David Imhotep have also promoted speculations about these things. And they have a number of followers on social media, some anonymous and others not.
Social media have kept many ideas alive that otherwise few would have heard about.
But as I said not only African Americans promote pseudo history and wild speculations, such things one can see among most peoples.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: The myth about Black Olmecs (and other alleged black precolumbian American civilisations) is mainly spread by black people today, even if there are exceptions. Especially on social media. But of course there are misinformation from whites about many other subjects. All peoples are able to spread misinformation about different things, even if the subjects vary.
They refused to acknowledge African history and African Americans history and contributions. They now are arguing over Critical Race Theory", which once again is ignoring actual and factual history. They still refuse to acknowledge actual and factual history, so some people started digging and create their own narratives.
As you yourself admitted. These Black Americans) gather this information from primary sources written by whites.
You are great at victim blaming. Blame it on the Blacks… Sounds familiar in historical American context.
They also deny the history of Black historical characters. And in 2022 we have whites arguing over "Race Theory", because they don't want to acknowledge actual (Black) American history.
You don't understand the social structure of America. You just say anything. Sounds familiar to ABOS theorists. And by that token you should know better, considering that all this information (as you reason, by your own admission) is widely available.
quote:Black History Is Missing In U.S. History Education
quote: American school curriculums need to include Black history beyond Black History Month.
A 2015 study by the National Museum of African American History and Culture and Oberg Research found that American history classes only spend an average of 8-9% of time learning Black history. State education departments must begin altering textbooks and curriculum to include Black history beyond the month of February.
And that bit of Black American history being taught now is attempted to being removed from school history textbooks as well. But …. it's the "Black Americans".
quote:It’s important, Newby-Alexander said, because African American history is often “othered” as an optional component of American history.
[…]
Critical race theory is a concept taught in law school, Newby-Alexander said, and unrelated to the African American History Education Commission.
quote: So according to you, whites no longer spread misinformation and lies about history and anthropology? That is purely hypocritical especially in this day and age of social media where the internet is full of misinformation and half truths of all stripes, but according to you it is only black people that do it. And somehow that absolves Europeans of their history of lies and distortion? I am not saying that you have to agree anything that isn't based on fact or isn't a reasonable theory based on facts, but you are acting like this is a blacks only issue. When the fact is that Europeans created these racial models and those models are still being used by many within and without of academia in many ways. So if you are going to criticize the use of such models then you have to start with the Europeans by making this model in the first place and spreading it.
The myth about Black Olmecs (and other alleged black precolumbian American civilisations) is mainly spread by black people today, even if there are exceptions. Especially on social media. But of course there are misinformation from whites about many other subjects. All peoples are able to spread misinformation about different things, even if the subjects vary.
Van Sertima was the only scholar who focused on that particular topic and that in itself makes him "rare" within African scholarship. He and Heyerdahl were alive at the same time, so to act like there were all these African scholars running around hyping up Olmecs and Africa is you simply over exaggerating in order to pretend that it is a problem unique to African scholars in having to "make up" history. No, Van Sertima followed theories started by white Europeans and the problem is exactly like I said, they haven't found enough evidence to support it. And the entire problem itself goes back to the "racial stereotypes" created by Europeans where if someone has "Negroid" features they must be from Africa. And that mentality still does exist today predominantly among Europeans but you refuse to accept this because according to you, this association between facial features and "race" is an Afrocentric issue when it is not. And to reiterate, the idea of African contact with the Americas is not super far fetched to begin with. The problem is just that no actual direct evidence of such contacts for the Olmecs has been found. And that extends to most of those who claim that "black Indians" or "black native Americans" are Africans.
But again, the first to claim blacks in the Americas were the Europeans and we can go back to the Spanish with their legends of Queen Califa:
quote: Calafia, or Califia, is the fictional queen of the island of California, first introduced by 16th century poet Garci Rodríguez de Montalvo in his epic novel of chivalry, Las sergas de Esplandián (The Adventures of Esplandián), written around 1510.[1] The Californias, a region of North America encompassing the U.S. state of California and the Mexican states of Baja California and Baja California Sur, take their name from Calafia and her kingdom.
In the novel, Calafia is a pagan warrior queen who ruled over a kingdom of black women living on the Island of California (an island off the coast of Asia). Calafia is convinced to raise an army of women warriors and sail away from California with a large flock of trained griffins so that she can join a Muslim battle against Christians who are defending Constantinople. In the siege, the griffins harm enemy and friendly forces, so they are withdrawn. Calafia and her ally Radiaro fight in single combat against the Christian leaders, a king and his son the knight Esplandián. Calafia is bested and taken prisoner, and she converts to Christianity. She marries a cousin of Esplandián and returns with her army to California for further adventures.[2]
The name of Calafia was likely formed from the Arabic word khalifa (religious state leader) that is known as caliph in English and califa in Spanish. Similarly, the name of Calafia's realm, California, likely originated from the same root, fabricated by the author to remind the 16th century Spanish reader of the reconquista, a centuries-long fight between Christians Iberians and Muslims Arabs Invaders that had recently concluded in Spain. The character of Calafia is used by Rodríguez de Montalvo to portray the superiority of chivalry in which the attractive virgin queen is conquered, converted to Christian beliefs, and married off. The book was very popular for many decades—Hernán Cortés read it—and it was selected by author Miguel de Cervantes as the first of many popular and presumed-harmful books to be burnt by characters in his famous novel Don Quixote.[2]
The point you seem to have a problem with is AAs calling out the historical presence of black skinned populations around the world as biggest case of "modern" pseudo science. When Europeans themselves have called out the presence of black skinned natives around the world. There shouldn't be any debate about the natural trait of diversity among any indigenous populations as that is not the exception, it is the rule. Now whether or not they call them "moors" or "Africans" can be debated but the point of human diversity in phenotype as a common factor across all human populations shouldn't be something that is only "Afrocentric". Because again, the whole idea of "race" and put people into "racial groups" is due to Europeans believing in light skin supremacy and doing anything and everything in their power to promote it. You lumping all Africans into one bucket and trying to slander them all as making up facts for feel good purposes is the problem I am pointing out. In fact, lets not forget the reason why the Spanish called the natives of America Indians or "Indios" is because they looked similar to the dark skinned people of India......
quote: Thor Heyerdahl died is what happened, but he accomplished what he set out to do which is to show it was possible to sail across the ocean in a reed raft. And there are others that have taken up where he left off, which means that plenty of Europeans and others still see this theory as a possibility. That doesn't mean evidence wont be found of African contact or that everybody outside of Afrocentrics have abandoned the idea altogether. Also, as far as serious scholarship goes, the last person to promote this theory was Ivan Van Sertima who is also dead. Meaning that in general, the theory is still a theory but the evidence for direct African contact has not been found at least that I know of so there isn't a lot of scholarship on it any longer. It is still a theory, but to this day, it was never an Afrocentric, regardless of whatever anonymous Afrocentrics you claim to be promoting it. And why are you talking about anonymous internet Afrocentrics anyway? Who introduced Olmecs into this thread?
Thor Heyerdahl did a lot of things, some things had more scientific credibility than others. Yes he died, and he belonged to a an older generation. Seems that most archaeologists, historians, linguistics and others do not support all of his ideas. Ivan van Sertima is well known and among those who work with American archaeology, anthropology and genetics (I know personally people who have worked with archaeology in the Americas for many years, one in 25 years) his ideas are not directly accepted. Already many years ago there were written articles that refuted many of his claims.
There is a lot of archaeology done, especially in Mesoamerica, and an African presence would have been discovered at least in some of the meticulous archaeological and anthropological investigations and research that is conducted there. But of course there are speculations, there will always be.
Then it of course differ which kind of speculations, and how it goes from speculation to pure fabrication like in this video. There are a lot of over the top stuff on the net and in books and articles by certain authors.
Some of the "Afrocentrics" (in the lack of better names) are maybe not so anonymous, like Clyde Winters who is well known online (also here on ES with his Mande Olmecs). And people like David Imhotep have also promoted speculations about these things. And they have a number of followers on social media, some anonymous and others not.
Social media have kept many ideas alive that otherwise few would have heard about.
But as I said not only African Americans promote pseudo history and wild speculations, such things one can see among most peoples.
Yes there is misinformation everywhere, but the issue I see most is that people follow racial models in assuming certain features imply African descent when they don't. And this model does no originate with Afrocentrics, even if some of them do follow these theories which obviously originates with Europeans. That does not mean that diversity in human features around the world does not exist, nor that ancient humans did not originate in Africa. It just means that certain features do not automatically indicate recent African origin. At least that is my way of looking at it and everybody is different.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
@Doug M, If I could give a "like" to that post above, I would.
With that being said, that image from the Swedish encyclopedia has to be accurate, considering that modern and surviving populations in the Amazon still look like this. So it's not a stretch to consider that populations that have died out, also have been described and portrayed accurately.
The ill-informed Black Americans are misinformed, which is different from spreading misinformation.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: But again, the first to claim blacks in the Americas were the Europeans and we can go back to the Spanish with their legends of Queen Califa.
Is it not always important who claimed a thing first. When we call people out who is spreading misinformation, is it up to us to try to refute their claims. It is hard to debate authors who lived in the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, 1800s or dead authors from the 1900s. It is up to us to debate those people who are spreading such ideas today.
quote: The point you seem to have a problem with is AAs calling out the historical presence of black skinned populations around the world as biggest case of "modern" pseudo science. When Europeans themselves have called out the presence of black skinned natives around the world. There shouldn't be any debate about the natural trait of diversity among any indigenous populations as that is not the exception, it is the rule. Now whether or not they call them "moors" or "Africans" can be debated but the point of human diversity in phenotype as a common factor across all human populations shouldn't be something that is only "Afrocentric". Because again, the whole idea of "race" and put people into "racial groups" is due to Europeans believing in light skin supremacy and doing anything and everything in their power to promote it. You lumping all Africans into one bucket and trying to slander them all as making up facts for feel good purposes is the problem I am pointing out. In fact, lets not forget the reason why the Spanish called the natives of America Indians or "Indios" is because they looked similar to the dark skinned people of India......
I do not say it is the biggest case of pseudoscience, there is a lot of other pseudo science as well that I have adressed in other fora, like the ideas of white Europeans paddling over the Atlantic to the Americas during the paleolithic, or ideas of some Native American tribes being Welsh, or ideas of white Europeans in ancient Peru. There are a lot of weird ideas out there, not supported by any real evidence. I maybe talk about the Black versions of pseudo history here on ES, among other because some debaters on ES has proposed some pseudo historical claims about Mande speaking Olmecs and similar.
Pseudo history is pseudo history whoever promotes it.
quote: Yes there is misinformation everywhere, but the issue I see most is that people follow racial models in assuming certain features imply African descent when they don't. And this model does no originate with Afrocentrics, even if some of them do follow these theories which obviously originates with Europeans. That does not mean that diversity in human features around the world does not exist, nor that ancient humans did not originate in Africa. It just means that certain features do not automatically indicate recent African origin. At least that is my way of looking at it and everybody is different.
The important is who promotes different ideas. If some Black people promote certain ideas they must also be called out. Those blacks that are spreading desinformation can not be exempt from criticism just because they are Black.
The same with other peoples, if they are promoting misinformation they ought to be called out too.
Let´s take our fellow ES member Clyde Winters, is he not responsible for spreading theories about Mande speaking Olmecs and similar which he promotes? We can hardly blame his books and articles, or posts on social media, on the whites, even if whites invented those ideas from the beginning. If we disagree with Clyde winters we still have to take a discussion with him, instead of blaming it on for example Leo Wiener who is dead since long time ago. The only ones we can call out are those who promotes these ideas now.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: @Doug M, If I could give a "like" to that post above, I would.
With that being said, that image from the Swedish encyclopedia has to be accurate, considering that modern and surviving populations in the Amazon still look like this. So it's not a stretch to consider that populations that have died out, also have been described and portrayed accurately.
The ill-informed Black Americans are misinformed, which is different from spreading misinformation.
All black Americans aren't misinformed. Some just go too far with certain ideas beyond what is reasonable. And the fact is that the hard scholarship of previous eras of African scholarship has fallen off since the 90s. But I wouldn't put everybody in the same boat.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: But again, the first to claim blacks in the Americas were the Europeans and we can go back to the Spanish with their legends of Queen Califa.
Is it not always important who claimed a thing first. When we call people out who is spreading misinformation, is it up to us to try to refute their claims. It is hard to debate authors who lived in the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, 1800s or dead authors from the 1900s. It is up to us to debate those people who are spreading such ideas today.
quote: The point you seem to have a problem with is AAs calling out the historical presence of black skinned populations around the world as biggest case of "modern" pseudo science. When Europeans themselves have called out the presence of black skinned natives around the world. There shouldn't be any debate about the natural trait of diversity among any indigenous populations as that is not the exception, it is the rule. Now whether or not they call them "moors" or "Africans" can be debated but the point of human diversity in phenotype as a common factor across all human populations shouldn't be something that is only "Afrocentric". Because again, the whole idea of "race" and put people into "racial groups" is due to Europeans believing in light skin supremacy and doing anything and everything in their power to promote it. You lumping all Africans into one bucket and trying to slander them all as making up facts for feel good purposes is the problem I am pointing out. In fact, lets not forget the reason why the Spanish called the natives of America Indians or "Indios" is because they looked similar to the dark skinned people of India......
I do not say it is the biggest case of pseudoscience, there is a lot of other pseudo science as well that I have adressed in other fora, like the ideas of white Europeans paddling over the Atlantic to the Americas during the paleolithic, or ideas of some Native American tribes being Welsh, or ideas of white Europeans in ancient Peru. There are a lot of weird ideas out there, not supported by any real evidence. I maybe talk about the Black versions of pseudo history here on ES, among other because some debaters on ES has proposed some pseudo historical claims about Mande speaking Olmecs and similar.
Pseudo history is pseudo history whoever promotes it.
quote: Yes there is misinformation everywhere, but the issue I see most is that people follow racial models in assuming certain features imply African descent when they don't. And this model does no originate with Afrocentrics, even if some of them do follow these theories which obviously originates with Europeans. That does not mean that diversity in human features around the world does not exist, nor that ancient humans did not originate in Africa. It just means that certain features do not automatically indicate recent African origin. At least that is my way of looking at it and everybody is different.
The important is who promotes different ideas. If some Black people promote certain ideas they must also be called out. Those blacks that are spreading desinformation can not be exempt from criticism just because they are Black.
The same with other peoples, if they are promoting misinformation they ought to be called out too.
Let´s take our fellow ES member Clyde Winters, is he not responsible for spreading theories about Mande speaking Olmecs and similar which he promotes? We can hardly blame his books and articles, or posts on social media, on the whites, even if whites invented those ideas from the beginning. If we disagree with Clyde winters we still have to take a discussion with him, instead of blaming it on for example Leo Wiener who is dead since long time ago. The only ones we can call out are those who promotes these ideas now.
OK and what does Clyde and his theories have to to with Great Zimbabwe and racial misinformation and pseudoscience spread by Europeans over 100s of years? It is like you are trying to elevate so-called "Afrocentrics" to the level of colonizers, thieves and liars like Europeans when that was the topic of the thread. This is the problem with trying to use so-called "Afrocentric pseudoscience" as a defense against the critiques of the facts of European pseudoscience and racism.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
The important for me is how Native Americans themselves perceive it, and obviously some of them feel a need to call out also "Afrocentrists". And as I posted even some African Americans, Whites and Latinos seem to think that they ought to be called out.
I have seen the comparison between misinformation about Great Zimbabwe and about the Olmec culture here and there. But since it is not the purpose of this thread I will leave it with that.
(I actually made a thread once about that subject, but it was removed)
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber:
quote:Black History Is Missing In U.S. History Education
As far as missing peoples in U.S. History education, it depends on the local school system and state.
I for one grew up in GA which decades ago was one of the first states to implement a comprehensive demographic history of the U.S. where it's not just the white majority that is taught but other minority groups from Blacks to Indigenous Americans and Hispanics. However pseudo-history has begun to corrupt that policy as well with the neo-Marxist 1618 Project that distorts and outright lies about the history of Blacks and puts them into a perpetual victim class. This is being done as social engineering or mass mind programming on black children. Thankfully at least here in GA enough black educators aren't falling for it.
As for pseudo-history in general, such was always used as a political tool of domination to justify political bias and lull populaces into a certain mindset. I explained this all before and it will never stop until people wake up and realize who is in power and what they want.
But to make the story short pseudo-history was first started by European colonizers as a means to justify their dominance. The de-Africanization of North Africa and especially Egypt is an example par-excellence of that. To Archaeopteryx, yes there are African American pseudo-historians and scholars but these are not taken seriously by mainstream academia as the white ones nestled within the ivory towers.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: The important for me is how Native Americans themselves perceive it, and obviously some of them feel a need to call out also "Afrocentrists". And as I posted even some African Americans, Whites and Latinos seem to think that they ought to be called out.
I have seen the comparison between misinformation about Great Zimbabwe and about the Olmec culture here and there. But since it is not the purpose of this thread I will leave it with that.
As I stated before the people who align with this theory aren't people who believe in Afrocentrism. They do not even believe they came from Africa. Central to Afrocentrism is the origin and root of Africa. Most of these people aren't the brightest on the bunch.
Here is a discussion going on with people who are pro ABOS and anti-ABOS. One ABOS guy is under the assumption that slave ships couldn't hold human cargo. The anti-ABOS explained that other cargo was shipped over as well. The pro-ABOS says, that human cargo is different, it's heavier than other types of cargo. This is what the pro-ABOS persons claimed. This of course defies all logic in physics.
Out of all scholarship, this online phenomena is irrelevant. It's weird, and irrelevant.
And another group is the people who have Native American Indian ancestry, which they claim.
As always you are arguing in circles and are saying nothing.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: (I actually made a thread once about that subject, but it was removed)
It was probably the same repetitive circular B.S.
Joe Rogen has hundreds of millions of views. Here you have a white polish woman claiming to be a Native American Indian. She complains about untraceable genetic regions to confirm her claims.
The Problem with DNA Testing for Native American Heritage w/Shannon O'Loughlin | Joe Rogan
quote: Originally posted by Djehuti: To Archaeopteryx, yes there are African American pseudo-historians and scholars but these are not taken seriously by mainstream academia as the white ones nestled within the ivory towers.
Yes, those are very seldom taken seriously. Some of them really have ideas which are far out there.
Like in this video with two well known proponents of somewhat odd ideas:
When it comes to some Native Americans feelings about the ideas of the pseudo historians and their followers, they see it as yet another attempt by foreigners to take something away from them. They see it as cultural appropriation and attacks on their identity. And Identity issues are often very sensitive.
About pseudo history in schools, here is one example: Once the University of New Mexico arranged travels for students to Mexico, to help students learn about the “African presence” in Mexico, also during Olmec times. That caused protests and the University made changes in their reasons for the study trips.
quote: The University of New Mexico came under fire online from anthropologists, archaeologists, activists, and skeptics after a flyer for an upcoming study abroad trip sponsored by their Chicano Studies department caused outrage by promising to help students learn about the “African presence” in Mexico during Olmec times. The trip, scheduled for May, was intended to explore the African experience in Mexico across time, including in the colonial period and in contemporary Mexico. But it was the decision to follow the Afrocentric claim that Olmec society had an African component that set off alarm bells.
What primary research have Dr. Clyde Winters and Dr. David Imhotep done? What primary sources do they use? The philosophical question becomes. Do they have the right to form an hypothesis? Yes, or no?
And with that, you yourself have been spreading fake news, false information trying to misinform people pertaining well documented and recorded American history.
quote:Everything has an underlying cause and people have been attempting to explain those causes ever since the curiosity has started to arisen in man’s mind. In scientific method, explanations were based on theories that came up from hypotheses. Accepted hypothesis becomes a theory but rejected hypothesis will never get that status
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: As far as missing peoples in U.S. History education, it depends on the local school system and state.
I did't grow up with the U.S. education system, so I take it from what is being told. Apparently it's still an issue.
At times I do follow some of these conversations on Youtube. And what most of these "self proclaimed ABOS" (Aboriginals) have in common is that they don't know basic US history. Questions like name me this president so and so… and they didn't know. Most of the methodology we apply here they reject, refuse to acknowledge. So it's all based on hypothesis and a philosophical premise.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
I already cited an old study from Galloway commenting on the 'Bushmanoid' features of ancient Zimbabweans albeit mixed with 'Negroid' traits but I cited a more recent craniometric study showing how one woman showed close affinities to the Teita which is interesting since Michael Crichton's 1966 thesis paper showed Egyptians to also have close craniometric affinities to the Teita.
This reminds me of the 'Kaffir race' hypothesis. I don't know who came up with it, but I recall that it entailed an orthognathous race that inhabited the southeastern and southern areas of the African continent. In the Phenotypes thread, I did bring up the fact that 19th century French anthropologist Jacques Joseph Champollion-Figeac believed the African continent was inhabited by three main races: ‘Negroes proper’, the Kaffirs, and the Moors, with Egyptians comprising the last grouping.
The Kaffirs though distinct from "Negroes" possessed some traits similar to Negroes while others similar to the Moors as described in the following two sources.
The Past and Future of the Kaffir Races (1866): Holden, William Clifford But the Kaffirs are a fine tall race of men, many being jet black, and some a dark copper colour. Their features are often fine, with the forehead well developed, and the whole of their physical and mental character standing out in broad contrast against the Hottentot race; and, apparently, having no affinity with the Negro. The above contains most of the views which have been advanced upon this subject by travellers and writers; but there is nothing certain or satisfactory among them; nor am I able to write with certainty, but can only place the subject in a new light, which is more satisfactory to my own mind than any of the theories advanced by other authors. Indeed, so many and so great are the difficulties attendant on the various theories which have been advanced, that I am unable to embrace any of them. After deep and long-continued inquiry and investigation, my opinion is, that the entrance of the different races into Africa is much more remote than any attempted to be assigned to it in relation to either Abraham or Ishmael. I am much more disposed to place it in connexion with the dispersion at the confusion of tongues, when "the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth" I also think that, if no previous great differences of physical conformation existed, God at that time added to the confusion of language distinctions of colour, size, and other great family characteristics. I am unable to account for the thick, matted, woolly hair of the Negro, Kaffir, and Hottentot, as distinguished from the long fine hair of the European; and I am unable to account for the jet black of the Kaffir and Negro, as distinguished from the fair European, on the grounds usually assigned to them, namely, those of climate, habit, &c, &c. According to these principles the Hottentot should change his sallow colour to the black of the Kaffir, —he should change his diminutive body to the athletic body of the Kaffir. The Hottentots live in the same country, subsist on the same food, breathe the same air, bask under the same sun, and are the subjects of the same habits; and yet they assimilate no nearer their Kaffir neighbours than they did centuries ago; and hence, reasoning from analogy, I am unable to account for these great tribal and national distinctions upon the grounds above named; and can only account for them satisfactorily upon the hypothesis advanced by myself.
The Kaffir Race of Natal (1867): Mann, Robert James The Kaffirs of the South-Eastern African coast, and of the Natal district, are undoubtedly of Negro blood. The distinctive characteristics of the Negro organisation,— the black woolly hair, dark eyes, flat face, depressed nose, jutting jaws, thick lips, large mouth, and peculiar odour of skin,— are all found among them in frequent and full development. But the Negro organisation is as unquestionably mingled in the Kaffir with some higher and nobler type. The woolly hair and peculiar odour of the skin are never absent. But the observer continually encounters men with sharp features, thin lips, prominent nose, and upright prominent, and often square foreheads of unmistakeable capacity. Another peculiarity which is very remarkable among these people, and which I think is wanting among the pure Negro races, is the lightness and slimness of the limbs. This is so strikingly obvious in the children that it at once attracts the notice of the most casual observers. Mr. Crawfurd justly remarks that the type features of Negro organisation are found in a "greatly mitigate form in the Kaffirs of the Eastern African coast. Now this modification of organisation must, I conceive, be attributed to one or two causes. It must be due either to external circumstances, brought into operation in the eastern districts, which do not attain in the western; or it must be a result of the commingling of different bloods. In my own limited sphere of observation I have never been able to detect the existence of the first class of influences. Certainly there is nothing in the practice of these people of the proceeding which has been conceived to call forth in some instances finer types of organisation, namely, the selection of exceptionally handsome women for their mates by privileged and distinguished men. The more I have moved about among these Kaffirs, and studied the interesting diversities of their features and organisation, the stronger the conviction has, almost unconsciously, and certainly involuntarily, grown in my own mind, that they are not of pure Negro blood, but that there are at least two distinct elements in their organisation, which are continually cropping out, now one, and now the other, into predominance in even the same families.
Not surprisingly the Kaffirs were basically a southern African version of 'Hamites' postulated to have a Eurasian origin.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: What primary research have Dr. Clyde Winters and Dr. David Imhotep done? What primary sources do they use? The philosophical question becomes. Do they have the right to form an hypothesis? Yes, or no?
Did you see the video? I hope you do not think that Clyde Winters cave theory, or David Imhoteps pyramids on Mars is well founded.
Of course they have the right to speculate how much they want, but everyone has also the right to call them out. Especially if they spread misinformation about Native American history.
I did not spread misinformation, it is only you who interpret everything with a bad intention. And it also sounds that you are unable to understand the perspectives of Native Americans about how some of them can feel when others try to misrepresent their history.
Buffalo soldiers did partake in the wars against Native Americans
Only about 1% of Native American tribes held slaves
The question about reparations is a moral issue and not a scientific one. And it is up to Black people to fight for it, they will not get it for free.
Native Americans have not got enough compensation for lost land or past sufferings yet. But that is also a moral question.
There is no tangible evidence of any African presence in precolumbian America. I suppose most archaeologists and anthropologists would agree to that (and I have spoken to many. I have friends that been archaeologists in America for many years. They have not found any traces of any African precolumbian presence. If you for example conduct archaeological excavations all over Mesoamerica for 25 years without finding anything tangible then you would not draw the conclusion that there were Africans all around the place). The fact that Black people have mixed with Native Americans post contact is another matter. People mix, that is natural. They did it already 50 000 years ago, and they do it today.
If you are worried about the so called "5 dollar Indians", it is up to you to to spread information about the matter, write articles, write on social media or whatever. No one forbids you. But you are not really concerned are you?
Who suffered most? Can one really tell?
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Did you see the video? I hope you do not think that Clyde Winters cave theory, or David Imhoteps pyramids on Mars is well founded.
No I did not watch the video, but I have seen other videos by Winders on Philippe SHOCK Matthews. And I know there are no pyramids on Mars. At least not by what peer reviewed science tells.
As others have explained prior, the internet is loaded with people who make these type of unfound claims. I don't take it seriously.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Of course they have the right to speculate how much they want, but everyone has also the right to call them out. Especially if they spread misinformation about Native American history.
By that token you should call everyone out who makes erroneous claims.
Goodluck with that one… arguing over a hypothesis.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I did not spread misinformation, it is only you who interpret everything with a bad intention. And it also sounds that you are unable to understand the perspectives of Native Americans about how some of them can feel when others try to misrepresent their history.
Yes you have on several occasions. And no, it's not a matter of interpreting. It's you making false and erroneous claims. OVER AND OVER! I described this as you having a low EQ.
You don't know any real Native Americans, you are sitting on a couch making up crap. If you are truly worried with actual Native Americans, you would be on these 5 dollar pretendians who steal billions of dollars. Instead you are worrying with some people who are online (mostly anonymous) claiming weird things like we came out of the earth in America etc. Most of these individuals do not even follow any scientific methodology not believe in the consensus.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Buffalo soldiers did partake in the wars against Native Americans
Yes because as explained before, some Indian tribes sided with confederates and enslaved Black Americans. So logically they (Black Americans) fought these Indian tribes. DUH.
On the other hand there as Indian tribes that aligned with Black Americans.
And for these reason you have a low EQ and are a cognative dissonant liar.
quote:During the antebellum period, the Cherokee and other Southeast Native American nations known as the Five Civilized Tribes held African-American slaves as workers and property. The Cherokee "elites created an economy and culture that highly valued and regulated slavery and the rights of slave owners" and, in "1860, about thirty years after their removal to Indian Territory from their respective homes in the Southeast, Cherokee Nation members owned 2,511 slaves (15 percent of their total population)." It was slave labor that "allowed wealthy Indians to rebuild the infrastructure of their lives even bigger and better than before," such as John Ross, a Cherokee chief, who "lived in a log cabin directly after Removal" but a few years after, "he replaced this dwelling with a yellow mansion, complete with a columned porch." After the American Civil War, the Cherokee Freedmen were emancipated and allowed to become citizens of the Cherokee Nation in accordance with a reconstruction treaty made with the United States in 1866.
quote:The Black Maroons of Florida, also known as Black Seminoles, Seminole Maroons, and Seminole Freedmen, were a community derived from Runaway slaves who integrated into American Indian culture.
[…]
During the first of two so-called Seminole Wars, Blacks and Indians fought side by side against American incursion into the region. Spain sold Florida to the United States in 1819 but even before the transfer, in 1818, General Andrew Jackson sent U.S. forces down the Apalachicola River to defeat and destroy Maroon, Seminole, and Creek communities. They destroyed the Maroons’ and Indian villages. Black Maroons and the Seminoles responded by moving further south into the more remote forests of central and southern Florida. Many Black Seminoles left Florida for Andros Island in the Bahamas.
[...]
They were mostly Gullah fugitives who escaped from the rice plantations in South Carolina and Georgia who joined with the newly formed Seminole groups who broke away from the Muskogee or Creek people.
[…]
Black maroons and the Seminoles also shared numerous cultural similarities regarding cuisine, tribal dancing, and dwelling construction There were differences such as religious practices and languages—the Seminoles spoke Creek and the maroons spoke Afro-Seminole Creole. These differences, however, did not prevent intercultural marriages or military alliances. The Florida Native American communities protected Black Seminoles from re-enslavement. In return, they provided manpower in military conflicts with the Spanish or Americans. Overall, the Florida Maroons lived independently of the Indians without oversight.
quote:At the outset of the war, many nations in Indian Territory signed treaties with the Confederacy—supported by a minority of wealthy slave-holding Indians within their communities. But those sympathies weren’t monolithic: Many Indians leaned toward abolitionism and advocated for sovereign independence from the U.S. and its bloody conflict. As the war progressed, momentum shifted as three Indian Home Guard regiments emerged to support the Union and protect vulnerable tribal communities from violent guerrilla warfare. The result: Indians fighting Indians in a white man’s war.
While Native American soldiers went to battle for a variety of reasons—to support or fight slavery, to defend tribal sovereignty and to protect family and community—the war did little to advance their needs and interests. Instead, it aggravated longstanding internal tribal tensions and ravaged territory the U.S. government had relocated them to decades earlier, creating a new wave of impoverished refugees.
You have the tendency to argue over things that have been refuted and debunked. And for this reason I have explained that you use circular babble.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Only about 1% of Native American tribes held slaves
Where is this 1% evidence and how does this refute the fact that they held Blacks as slaves? Does this now mean Black Americans had no rights to fight back? lol
quote:
In 1860…Cherokee Nation citizens owned 2,511 slaves (15 percent of their total population), Choctaw citizens owned 2,349 slaves (14 percent of their total population), and Creek citizens owned 1,532 slaves (10 percent of their total population). Chickasaw citizens owned 975 slaves, which amounted to 18 percent of their total population, a proportion equivalent to that of white slave owners in Tennessee, a former neighbour of the Chickasaw Nation and a large slaveholding state.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: The question about reparations is a moral issue and not a scientific one. And it is up to Black people to fight for it, they will not get it for free.
This circular argument has been encountered addressed and refuted over and over.
If this was a moral issues, why didn't they pay out reparations to Black Americans already? I mean Native Americans did receive autonomous land and money. The still receive monetary money on a yearly basis although it benefits the 5 dollar Indians mostly.
quote:Tribal sovereignty refers to the right of American Indians and Alaska Natives to govern themselves. The U.S. Constitution recognizes Indian tribes as distinct governments and they have, with a few exceptions, the same powers as federal and state governments to regulate their internal affairs.
quote: Callie House is most famous for her efforts to gain reparations for former slaves and is regarded as the early leader of the reparations movement among African American political activists. Callie Guy was born a slave in Rutherford Country near Nashville, Tennessee. Her date of birth is usually assumed to be 1861, but due to the lack of birth records for slaves, this date is not certain. She was raised in a household that included her widowed mother, sister, and her sister’s husband. House received some primary school education.
The justice claim for reparations has been going on since the days of 40 acres and a mule. And the corrupt government keeps telling the "social issues" have to be studied, meanwhile the government kept expanding on the socioeconomic disfranchisement with mass incarceration. Black Americans want and need a Marshal plan.
quote: The Idea of Reparations
Reparations for the slavery is not a new idea. Before the Civil War ended, General William Tecumseh Sherman issued an order in South Carolina. He wanted 40 acres and the loan of an Army mule set aside for each former slave family. This order was never carried out. After the war, Radical Republicans in Congress passed laws requiring confiscation of former-Confederate property to provide the ex-slaves with "40 acres and a mule." In 1866, President Andrew Johnson vetoed the legislation.
The next push for reparations took place at the turn of the century. Several black organizations lobbied Congress to provide pensions for former slaves and their children. One bill introduced into the U.S. Senate in 1894 would have granted direct payments of up to $500 to all ex-slaves plus monthly pensions ranging from $4 to $15. This, and several similar bills, died in congressional committees. The pension movement itself faded away with the onset of World War I.
During the 1960s, some black leaders revived the idea of reparations. In 1969, James Forman (then head of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee) proclaimed a "Black Manifesto." It demanded $500 million from American churches and synagogues for their role in perpetuating slavery before the Civil War. Black nationalist organizations, such as the Black Panther Party and Black Muslims, also demanded reparations.
In the 1980s, a new call arose for black reparations. It was stimulated by two other movements that successfully secured payments from the U.S. government. The Supreme Court in 1980 ordered the federal government to pay eight Sioux Indian tribes $122 million to compensate for the illegal seizure of tribal lands in 1877. Then in 1988, Congress approved the payment of $1.25 billion to 60,000 Japanese-American citizens who had been interned in prison camps during World War II.
In April 1989, Council Member Ray Jenkins guided through the Detroit City Council a resolution. It called for a $40 billion federal education fund for black college and trade school students. About the same time, a conference of black state legislators meeting in New Orleans backed the idea of a federally financed education fund for descendants of slaves. Shortly afterward, Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-MI) drafted a bill calling for the establishment of a congressional commission to study the impact of slavery on African-Americans.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: There is no tangible evidence of any African presence in precolumbian America. I suppose most archaeologists and anthropologists would agree to that (and I have spoken to many. I have friends that been archaeologists in America for many years. They have not found any traces of any African precolumbian presence. If you for example conduct archaeological excavations all over Mesoamerica for 25 years without finding anything tangible then you would not draw the conclusion that there were Africans all around the place). The fact that Black people have mixed with Native Americans post contact is another matter. People mix, that is natural. They did it already 50 000 years ago, and they do it today.
Not being able to find and not finding are two different things. If you want to argue you need to pick up that argument with these white scholars who made those claims, pertaining these primary findings they did.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: If you are worried about the so called "5 dollar Indians", it is up to you to to spread information about the matter, write articles, write on social media or whatever. No one forbids you. But you are not really concerned are you?
I am worried about this, this is why I am addressing it to you. You don't know what I do outside of this. So that was "another assumptions" you made.
Stealing billions has a far more priority than some unknown people making weird claims about the earth being flat etc. And yes, they believe that as well. They also deny the MAAFA etc.
You are the 'self proclaimed "Native Indian American" expert', so tell me how large is the actual Native American population and how much have the 5 dollar pretendians stolen from the actual Native Americans?
quote:The Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes was appointed by President Grover Cleveland in 1893 to negotiate land with the Cherokee
Will Rogers and his wife, 1935. Will's application to the Dawes Commission in 1900 was accepted, and he was enrolled as a member of the Cherokee Nation.
As far as missing peoples in U.S. History education, it depends on the local school system and state.
I for one grew up in GA which decades ago was one of the first states to implement a comprehensive demographic history of the U.S. where it's not just the white majority that is taught but other minority groups from Blacks to Indigenous Americans and Hispanics. However pseudo-history has begun to corrupt that policy as well with the neo-Marxist 1618 Project that distorts and outright lies about the history of Blacks and puts them into a perpetual victim class. This is being done as social engineering or mass mind programming on black children. Thankfully at least here in GA enough black educators aren't falling for it.
As for pseudo-history in general, such was always used as a political tool of domination to justify political bias and lull populaces into a certain mindset. I explained this all before and it will never stop until people wake up and realize who is in power and what they want.
But to make the story short pseudo-history was first started by European colonizers as a means to justify their dominance. The de-Africanization of North Africa and especially Egypt is an example par-excellence of that. To Archaeopteryx, yes there are African American pseudo-historians and scholars but these are not taken seriously by mainstream academia as the white ones nestled within the ivory towers.
The point is that the Eurocentric ideology has a world wide system of institutions and organizations to spread these views and legitimize it as part of the history of colonial expansion. Meanwhile native and indigenous cultures have been robbed of their land, history, languages, cultures, resources and so forth and don't have educational institutions of their own to teach their own history or identity. So of course Europeans will defend those institutions and prop them up as "objective" meaning allowing misinformation, lies and half truths to continue to spread. This is why so often these people spend so much time trying to find and focus on frauds(and in some cases propping them up) in order to misdirect people away from their own frauds and history of lies and pseudoscience. And it is because of that control over institutions of education world wide that the "classical model" of history is the dominant model everywhere in the world. Obviously that model does not include Africa, Asia or the Americas except as tertiary players in world history.... which is obviously silly, since Rome and Greece derive their civilization from Africa and Asia. Not to mention the classical civilizations in the Americas like the Olmecs predate Greece. And that control of these institutions is how these 'racial models' of history also came to proliferate as well even though they try to sit here and deny it. This also means control of world history via the control of the archaeology and anthropology of the world is critical to maintaining that Eurocentric focus. This is why you need to go to Europe and European universities to get a degree in Egyptology and similarly to get a Degree in MesoAmerican studies you need a degree from European created universities.
In fact, that control of the archaeology and anthropology is key to understanding the situation in Africa today. Because Africans do not seem to want to take control of the story of their own history and anthropology. And unfortunately, in Africa it is the Europeans who still control the excavation, analysis, study and dissemination of information about African history, including the Great Zimbabwe civilization.
And in the USA specifically, there has always been a tug of war ideologically between the white left and white right over what to do with the "negro problem". Meaning controlling the agenda, direction and discourse around black issues, including propping up black faces to be the mascots for these agendas. And that also means creating programs and initiatives that masquerade as helping black people but mostly are not (affirmative action, integration, etc). The 1618 project isn't so much a "neo marxist" movement, but part of the white left taking over the discourse on campus surrounding racism, oppression and injustice. And that means funding certain projects and giving money to certain black academics and creating whole institutes and departments to focus on 'antiracism' and "social justice", which fake from top to bottom. Not to mention 'black history month' itself reflects a lack of African identity in North America. And it often focuses on glorifying token figures and often misses the point that there is nothing to celebrate about living under oppression. To the point that most black people don't know that the Democrats are the party of segregation, slavery and the confederacy.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote: Originally posted by Ish Geber: You don't know any real Native Americans, you are sitting on a couch making up crap. If you are truly worried with actual Native Americans, you would be on these 5 dollar pretendians who steal billions of dollars. Instead you are worrying with some people who are online (mostly anonymous) claiming weird things like we came out of the earth in America etc. Most of these individuals do not even follow any scientific methodology not believe in the consensus.
Idiotic accusation. Indeed I know Native Americans mainly in USA, Mexico and Brazil, and I have for many years. Do you know any, have you ever participated in any action for Native rights? Are you member of any organisation for the support of Native Americans?
quote:I described this as you having a low EQ
Seems you have even lower EQ. If we now shall discuss each others eventual EQ. You seem unable to understand how some Native Americans view cultural appropriation. You seem only interested in Black peoples perspective.
The rest of your post is mostly spam bringing up a lot of things irrelevant for the discussion. Seems you are just out to have a quarrel.
Are you jealous that some Native Americans got a very small compensation for some of the land loss and suffering they had to endure? Jealousy is a bitch.
quote: Not being able to find and not finding are two different things. If you want to argue you need to pick up that argument with these white scholars who made those claims, pertaining these primary findings they did.
Well, I bring it up also with those Black people that uphold and promote outdated ideas about Black Olmecs or other Black/African peoples in precolumbian America. You will be hard pressed to find experts on precolumbian cultures promoting such ideas today. Ask an expert like Ann Cyphers if you do not believe me.
How many archaeologists, anthropologists, geneticists and others specializing in precolumbian Native American cultures do you know?
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I already cited an old study from Galloway commenting on the 'Bushmanoid' features of ancient Zimbabweans albeit mixed with 'Negroid' traits but I cited a more recent craniometric study showing how one woman showed close affinities to the Teita which is interesting since Michael Crichton's 1966 thesis paper showed Egyptians to also have close craniometric affinities to the Teita.
This reminds me of the 'Kaffir race' hypothesis. I don't know who came up with it, but I recall that it entailed an orthognathous race that inhabited the southeastern and southern areas of the African continent. In the Phenotypes thread, I did bring up the fact that 19th century French anthropologist Jacques Joseph Champollion-Figeac believed the African continent was inhabited by three main races: ‘Negroes proper’, the Kaffirs, and the Moors, with Egyptians comprising the last grouping.
The Kaffirs though distinct from "Negroes" possessed some traits similar to Negroes while others similar to the Moors as described in the following two sources.
The Past and Future of the Kaffir Races (1866): Holden, William Clifford But the Kaffirs are a fine tall race of men, many being jet black, and some a dark copper colour. Their features are often fine, with the forehead well developed, and the whole of their physical and mental character standing out in broad contrast against the Hottentot race; and, apparently, having no affinity with the Negro. The above contains most of the views which have been advanced upon this subject by travellers and writers; but there is nothing certain or satisfactory among them; nor am I able to write with certainty, but can only place the subject in a new light, which is more satisfactory to my own mind than any of the theories advanced by other authors. Indeed, so many and so great are the difficulties attendant on the various theories which have been advanced, that I am unable to embrace any of them. After deep and long-continued inquiry and investigation, my opinion is, that the entrance of the different races into Africa is much more remote than any attempted to be assigned to it in relation to either Abraham or Ishmael. I am much more disposed to place it in connexion with the dispersion at the confusion of tongues, when "the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth" I also think that, if no previous great differences of physical conformation existed, God at that time added to the confusion of language distinctions of colour, size, and other great family characteristics. I am unable to account for the thick, matted, woolly hair of the Negro, Kaffir, and Hottentot, as distinguished from the long fine hair of the European; and I am unable to account for the jet black of the Kaffir and Negro, as distinguished from the fair European, on the grounds usually assigned to them, namely, those of climate, habit, &c, &c. According to these principles the Hottentot should change his sallow colour to the black of the Kaffir, —he should change his diminutive body to the athletic body of the Kaffir. The Hottentots live in the same country, subsist on the same food, breathe the same air, bask under the same sun, and are the subjects of the same habits; and yet they assimilate no nearer their Kaffir neighbours than they did centuries ago; and hence, reasoning from analogy, I am unable to account for these great tribal and national distinctions upon the grounds above named; and can only account for them satisfactorily upon the hypothesis advanced by myself.
The Kaffir Race of Natal (1867): Mann, Robert James The Kaffirs of the South-Eastern African coast, and of the Natal district, are undoubtedly of Negro blood. The distinctive characteristics of the Negro organisation,— the black woolly hair, dark eyes, flat face, depressed nose, jutting jaws, thick lips, large mouth, and peculiar odour of skin,— are all found among them in frequent and full development. But the Negro organisation is as unquestionably mingled in the Kaffir with some higher and nobler type. The woolly hair and peculiar odour of the skin are never absent. But the observer continually encounters men with sharp features, thin lips, prominent nose, and upright prominent, and often square foreheads of unmistakeable capacity. Another peculiarity which is very remarkable among these people, and which I think is wanting among the pure Negro races, is the lightness and slimness of the limbs. This is so strikingly obvious in the children that it at once attracts the notice of the most casual observers. Mr. Crawfurd justly remarks that the type features of Negro organisation are found in a "greatly mitigate form in the Kaffirs of the Eastern African coast. Now this modification of organisation must, I conceive, be attributed to one or two causes. It must be due either to external circumstances, brought into operation in the eastern districts, which do not attain in the western; or it must be a result of the commingling of different bloods. In my own limited sphere of observation I have never been able to detect the existence of the first class of influences. Certainly there is nothing in the practice of these people of the proceeding which has been conceived to call forth in some instances finer types of organisation, namely, the selection of exceptionally handsome women for their mates by privileged and distinguished men. The more I have moved about among these Kaffirs, and studied the interesting diversities of their features and organisation, the stronger the conviction has, almost unconsciously, and certainly involuntarily, grown in my own mind, that they are not of pure Negro blood, but that there are at least two distinct elements in their organisation, which are continually cropping out, now one, and now the other, into predominance in even the same families.
Not surprisingly the Kaffirs were basically a southern African version of 'Hamites' postulated to have a Eurasian origin.
Has anyone looked in whether or not Black South Africans have any significant ancestry from northeastern Africa? I've read that Khoisan groups might have obtained some alleles for lighter skin through admixture with East African pastoralists, but not that this would have impacted Bantu-speakers in the region to a significant degree.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Guys, guys, please. I've tolerated enough posts about racist propaganda and U.S. history. This thread is about racist propaganda and historical revisionism pertaining to Great Zimbabwe a.k.a. Monomotapa Civilization. If you want to discuss the former more general topic I suggest you do so in my original thread here: Racism, History, and Lies
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Has anyone looked in whether or not Black South Africans have any significant ancestry from northeastern Africa? I've read that Khoisan groups might have obtained some alleles for lighter skin through admixture with East African pastoralists, but not that this would have impacted Bantu-speakers in the region to a significant degree.
That theory of Khoisan having Eurasian ancestry has already been debunked, but I do plan on creating a thread on explanations for their light complexion soon. Though I should remind of you Tukuler's thread on the flaws of PCA analysis. As for the Kaffir Race Theory and connections to Northeast Africa, so far there is no evidence for such. Although, if I recall correctly, genetics has revealed a very ancient pre-Bantu population in Eastern Africa that has nothing to do with Mota or Pastoralists. I will have to look into that more.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: That theory of Khoisan having Eurasian ancestry has already been debunked, but I do plan on creating a thread on explanations for their light complexion soon. Though I should remind of you Tukuler's thread on the flaws of PCA analysis. As for the Kaffir Race Theory and connections to Northeast Africa, so far there is no evidence for such. Although, if I recall correctly, genetics has revealed a very ancient pre-Bantu population in Eastern Africa that has nothing to do with Mota or Pastoralists. I will have to look into that more.
Maybe a population similar to that of the Hofmeyr specimen, then? They supposedly resembled Upper Paleolithic Europeans to the exclusion of recent sub-equatorial Africans.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Guys, guys, please. I've tolerated enough posts about racist propaganda and U.S. history. This thread is about racist propaganda and historical revisionism pertaining to Great Zimbabwe a.k.a. Monomotapa Civilization. If you want to discuss the former more general topic I suggest you do so in my original thread here: Racism, History, and Lies
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Has anyone looked in whether or not Black South Africans have any significant ancestry from northeastern Africa? I've read that Khoisan groups might have obtained some alleles for lighter skin through admixture with East African pastoralists, but not that this would have impacted Bantu-speakers in the region to a significant degree.
That theory of Khoisan having Eurasian ancestry has already been debunked, but I do plan on creating a thread on explanations for their light complexion soon. Though I should remind of you Tukuler's thread on the flaws of PCA analysis. As for the Kaffir Race Theory and connections to Northeast Africa, so far there is no evidence for such. Although, if I recall correctly, genetics has revealed a very ancient pre-Bantu population in Eastern Africa that has nothing to do with Mota or Pastoralists. I will have to look into that more.
Yes. Get back on topic ppl.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Poster from when Zimbabwe was called Rhodesia, where the myth about an ancient "white" civilisation at Great Zimbabwe is forwarded. Here a black man kneels before the spirit of a white queen of Sheeba.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
There are also questions regarding just how extensive the Mutapa Empire was in which Great Zimbabwe was the capital.
Many people do not realize that there are at least 200 stone settlements all throughout Southern African region!
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I…. accusation.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Guys, guys, please. I've tolerated enough posts about racist propaganda and U.S. history. This thread is about racist propaganda and historical revisionism pertaining to Great Zimbabwe a.k.a. Monomotapa Civilization. If you want to discuss the former more general topic I suggest you do so in my original thread here: Racism, History, and Lies
I respect your position so point taken. Pardon me that I had to respond to that individual.
Here are some papers pertaining the ancient populations till present day, in the region of Zimbabwe.
quote:
Figure 4. Distribution of Haplotypes by Population. (a) Frequencies of each major haplogroup by African country, with color codes identical to Fig. 2. D.R.C. = Democratic Republic of the Congo, C.A.R. = Central African Republic; (b) Heatmap of L5 frequency by country normalized to maximum; (c) Heatmap of L7 frequency by country normalized to maximum. For b–c, Countries shaded in gray have no data, and an ‘ × ’ marks the locality with highest frequency (Mbuti population in b, Sandawe population in c).
Complete Khoisan and Bantu genomes from southern Africa Abstract The genetic structure of the indigenous hunter-gatherer peoples of southern Africa, the oldest known lineage of modern human, is important for understanding human diversity. Studies based on mitochondrial and small sets of nuclear markers have shown that these hunter-gatherers, known as Khoisan, San, or Bushmen, are genetically divergent from other humans. However, until now, fully sequenced human genomes have been limited to recently diverged populations 4,5,6,7,8. Here we present the complete genome sequences of an indigenous hunter-gatherer from the Kalahari Desert and a Bantu from southern Africa, as well as protein-coding regions from an additional three hunter-gatherers from disparate regions of the Kalahari. We characterize the extent of whole-genome and exome diversity among the five men, reporting 1.3 million novel DNA differences genome-wide, including 13,146 novel amino acid variants. In terms of nucleotide substitutions, the Bushmen seem to be, on average, more different from each other than, for example, a European and an Asian. Observed genomic differences between the hunter-gatherers and others may help to pinpoint genetic adaptations to an agricultural lifestyle. Adding the described variants to current databases will facilitate inclusion of southern Africans in medical research efforts, particularly when family and medical histories can be correlated with genome-wide data.
Main Four indigenous Namibian hunter-gatherers !Gubi, G/aq'o, D#kgao and !Aî (referred to here as KB1, NB1, TK1 and MD8, respectively), each the eldest member of his community, were chosen for genome sequencing based on their linguistic group, geographical location and Y-chromosome haplogroup representation (Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 1). The Bantu individual is Archbishop Desmond Tutu (ABT), who represents Sotho-Tswana and Nguni speakers (from the broad Niger–Congo languages), the two largest southern African Bantu groups.
Consistent with the view that southern Africans are among the most divergent human populations, we identified more SNPs in KB1, and to a lesser extent in ABT, than have been reported in other individual human genomes (Fig. 2 and Table 1), although a portion of the variation in SNP numbers may stem from differences in technology and levels of coverage. The number of SNPs that are novel (that is, not previously seen in other individuals) is far higher for KB1 and ABT than for other individual whole genomes (Table 1). KB1 and ABT each have approximately 1 million SNPs that are not shared with each other or with the published Yoruban, Asian or European complete genomes4,5,6,7,8 (Fig. 2). In the 117 megabases (Mb) of sequenced exome-containing intervals, the average rate of nucleotide differences between a pair of the Bushmen was 1.2 per kilobase, compared to an average of 1.0 per kilobase differing between a European and Asian individual. The higher SNP rate in Bushmen is reflected by the offset of the red and black lines in Fig. 3b. The autosomal diversity of the study participants is mirrored by the diversity of the mitochondrial genomes. Whereas Europeans on average show approximately 20 differences from the Cambridge reference sequence (CRS)11, our southern African participants show up to 100 mitochondrial SNPs relative to the CRS (Supplementary Tables 4 and 5 and Supplementary Figs 1 and 2). More importantly, despite all mitochondrial sequences belonging to the same haplogroup L0, up to 84 differences are observed between pairs of participants’ mitochondrial genomes (Supplementary Table 4). Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Seems that famous monuments like Great Zimbabwe often attract some odd theories. I once, long time ago, read a book that promoted the idea that Great Zimbabwe was a fortified trade station built and run by Indians (from India) to be able to trade with the African local population. The author claimed that there were many similarities between Great Zimbabwe and certain Indian architecture.
If I ever find that book again I can reference it here.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ There are very few similarities between the stone structures of Southern Africa and those of India. For one the perimeter of the South African structures are totally rounded whereas Indian perimeters have straight edges to them as well as round areas. The walls of the South African structures are predominantly straight while those of India have bulky bases. Also the central part of the forts in India are on elevated geographic features like hilltops whereas the central cities in South Africa are on the same elevation. What's more is that the African stone structures when viewed from above they clearly form fractal patterns which are unique to African architectural structures in general.
bird's eye view of Mpumalanga stone ruins
^ Note the fractal pattern. A photo of some old stone ruins in Mulamalanga sparked off a huge amount of interest on our Face Book page last week (20,853 views), with many interesting snippets of information coming to the fore. The Blaauboschkraal ruins can be seen near the Crossroads Pass in Mpumalanga, which is about 6 km from Machadodorp / eNtokozweni. What makes these ruins so fascinating is the relatively new resource of anyone being able to study these stone circles via satellite imagery on Google Earth. Try it and see for yourself. Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
^^ Yes the fractal architecture in Africa is very interesting. I remember I once saw this TED talk about it:
Anyone here heard of an amateur "anthropologist" on YouTube and Twitter named Robert Sepehr? Because, holy fuck, is he a lolcow.
"Mansa Musa was Kaukazoid n shiet!" (Be sure to wear something protecting your brain cells when clicking on this link)
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
^^I think you got wrong video, the one you posted is about daggers:
I see Robert Sepehrs YouTube page contains a lot of rather odd things, among them videos about the mystical Vril society which is rather popular in occult literature and UFO-literature.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: ^^I think you got wrong video, the one you posted is about daggers:
Fixed.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^^ your youtube link is on the history of stilettos
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Brandon, just watched that, this dude is a Neo-Nazi I regret correcting that link. It's not worth looking at. That whole post should deleted entirely. I've looked into his other works, the man is absolutely hideous. Not worth discussing, we don't need that here.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: ^^I think you got wrong video, the one you posted is about daggers:
I've seen Robert Sepehr's videos. He gets some things right especially in regards to occult history, whereas other things are way off. For example his Atlantean theories and 'Aryan race' claims. In one video he tried to tie the Frankish side-braid of warrior men to the ancient Egyptian sidelock of youth. I mean the guy is everywhere.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Brandon, just watched that, this dude is a Neo-Nazi I regret correcting that link. It's not worth looking at. That whole post should deleted entirely. I've looked into his other works, the man is absolutely hideous. Not worth discussing, we don't need that here.
I was going to make a thread about this guy earlier this week.
I saw this video below earlier this week and i did not realize he was a pseudo anthropologist,a racist etc.. until the video almost ended.
India's Genetic Ancestry - ROBERT SEPEHR Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Stop posting Nazis please, they dont need a voice here
Posted by Shebitku (Member # 23742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
I see Robert Sepehrs YouTube page contains a lot of rather odd things
"Rather odd"? He is a white supremacist who believes that only descendants of "Aryans" are capable of building/having civilisations worth of note, If he was black you would be here crying like a baby
quote:Originally posted by Lioness
this dude is a Neo-Nazi
You are also a suspected Neo-Nazi
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shebitku: You are also a suspected Neo-Nazi
yes, if you are very very stupid
Posted by Shebitku (Member # 23742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lioness
yes, if you are very very stupid
Just a observation of the narratives you push, You are a known cosplayer
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
you are very stupid
Posted by Shebitku (Member # 23742) on :
^ If you say so.....
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Anyone here heard of an amateur "anthropologist" on YouTube and Twitter named Robert Sepehr? Because, holy fuck, is he a lolcow.
I mean at this point just point and laugh and keep it moving. No one should even seriously entertain this lol.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
@Shebitku and Lioness
Knock it off before posts get deleted.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Anyone here heard of an amateur "anthropologist" on YouTube and Twitter named Robert Sepehr? Because, holy fuck, is he a lolcow.
I mean at this point just point and laugh and keep it moving. No one should even seriously entertain this lol.
Had Kankou Musa Keïta I his ethnicity been what is shown by the Robert Sepehr illustration.
Robert Sepehr has yet to explain his lineage and why Kankou Musa Keïta I was astounded by the ancient art work in Egypt, which is why he gave so much gold away in Egypt. Robert also has to explain why it’s a history passed done by the Griots?
Luckily Robert Sepehr posted a video on YouTube, where we can hear his pseudo intellectual babbles.
quote: A 1375 CE illustration of Mansa Kanku Musa (r. 1312-1337 CE) who ruled the Mali Empire in West Africa. (Detail from the Catalan Atlas Sheet 6, National Library of France, Paris)
Sundiata Keita died in 1255 CE but quite how is uncertain. Some records point to an accidental but fatal arrow wound, others to drowning in the Sankarani River. His tomb is not known because of the Malinke tradition of never revealing where a king is buried. More certain is Sundiata's legacy, for the king had established a relatively stable empire which a long line of his descendants would rule, starting with his son Mansa Uli (r. c. 1255-1270 CE). The Mali Empire would keep on growing, especially during the reign of Sundiata's grand nephew, Mansa Musa I, who oversaw the largest territorial expansion in West Africa, spread the religion and architecture of Islam, and famously spent tons of gold on a visit to Cairo in 1324 CE.
quote:“Musa Keita I (c. 1280 – c. 1337) was the tenth Mansa, which translates as "sultan" (king) or "emperor"," of the wealthy West African Mali Empire. At the time of Musa's rise to the throne, the Malian Empire consisted of territory formerly belonging to the Ghana Empire in present-day southern Mauritania and in Melle (Mali) and the immediate surrounding areas. Musa held many titles, including Emir of Melle, Lord of the Mines of Wangara, Conqueror of Ghanata, and at least a dozen others. It is said that Mansa Musa had conquered 24 cities, each with surrounding districts containing villages and estates, during his reign“
^ For the record I don't think Robert Sepehr is a Nazi per say, but he does seem to be an 'Aryanist'. His surname Sepehr is Persian and means something like celestial or heavenly. So unless that's a pen name, he is of Iranian (true Aryan) ancestry. Unfortunately I have noticed some Iranians trying to revive the Aryanist views of scholarship that Nazism was based on.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ For the record I don't think Robert Sepehr is a Nazi per se, but he does seem to be an 'Aryanist'. His surname Sepehr is Persian and means something like celestial or heavenly. So unless that's a pen name, he is of Iranian (true Aryan) ancestry. Unfortunately I have noticed some Iranians trying to revive the Aryanist views of scholarship that Nazism was based on.
An Aryanist is actually worse. A neo nazi is considered dumb on the fascist totem pole.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
You guys taking these clowns seriously instead of just pointing and laughing at them and keeping it moving lmfaooo. No one in their right mind would believe Mansa Musa who is a Black ass Mandinka deep within West Africa was a non-Black person. Heck "Mansa" itself is a Mandinka word.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ If Robert Sepehr actually made that claim, then he is crazier than I thought.
LOL I've been saying for years now that the white-wash never ended with Egypt and my thread here proves it with Great Zimbabwe being a victim of white-washing. Nobody is safe. So Mansa Musa is white. Who next? Queen Nzinga of Angola?! LOL Posted by Shebitku (Member # 23742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ If Robert Sepehr actually made that claim, then he is crazier than I thought.
This is a common claim amongst Eurocentrics/Aryanists and isn't foreign to Egyptsearch
quote:Originally posted by Concerned member of Public:
I posted something around 5 years ago on it. If I remember correctly, what I said is Malian state religion was Islam, but this obviously was not an indigenous faith to Mali, but brought in by Arabs. I then said, a 14th and 15th century Manuscript, seems to depict Mansa Musa (and another king) as an Arab. He don't look black African, nor do some of the other kings.
quote:You do realise Mali Kings themselves claimed descent from Arabs?
quote: the fact the Mali royals/kings claimed descent from Arabs doesn't seem at all like a dubious claim or wild speculation; the 14th-15th manuscripts do show Arab-looking kings.
quote:That image doesn't look like a native to Mali at all, but looks like an Arab
quote:there's archaeological evidence of Arab merchants/traders in the region and the Mali royalty even claimed descent from Arabs. If i'm not mistaken the scholar Robert Gayre detailed more theories and details on all this since he also proposed Arabs or Semites had some involvement with Great Zimbabwe.
Im suprised Antalas isn't here explaining why Mansa Musa shouldn't be regarded as black but rather a barbarian who was predominantly western eurasian descent.
Euros want all of Africa for themselves Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shebitku:
Im suprised Antalas isn't here explaining why Mansa Musa shouldn't be regarded as black but rather a barbarian who was predominantly western eurasian descent.
Euros want all of Africa for themselves
This guy is trash from the highest “order“.
And the irony is that YouTube has guidelines. 1 of them is not spreading hate messages and false information (fake news).
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: You guys taking these clowns seriously instead of just pointing and laughing at them and keeping it moving lmfaooo. No one in their right mind would believe Mansa Musa who is a Black ass Mandinka deep within West Africa was a non-Black person. Heck "Mansa" itself is a Mandinka word.
The point is that they have a “relatively large “ following, where they are allowed to spread all this utter garbage on social media.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
LOL ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Like
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
It's clear you have no idea what you are talking about. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
