This book amazingly shows how the pioneer Assyriologists said Mesopotamia had 'Cushite' origins! Did you know that there are still Black populations in southern Asia? This book brings proof in pictures! They are the descendants of the ancient civilisation builders of Asia! A wonderful follow-up to Hermstein's first volume showing the ancestors of the Sumerians to be of African origin.
This volume concentrates on the skeletal reports produced by physical anthropologists which showed that the Sumerians, Akkadians and Babylonians were a predominantly Black people. It utilises techniques used by the FBI to show the racial affinity of skeletal remains. This is CSI level of proof! This is the must have book for those interested in Black history.
Egypt was African. Now Mesopotamian civilisation is shown to have had a Black origin! For those wishing to avoid a Black origin of civilisation they are fast running out of refuges!
Mike111 Member # 9361
posted
^We already have many old threads on the Mesopotamian civilizations. You have been here for five years, so you must have seen some of them, so why are you pushing this book?
Amun-Ra The Ultimate Member # 20039
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^We already have many old threads on the Mesopotamian civilizations. You have been here for five years, so you must have seen some of them, so why are you pushing this book?
Why not? We won't have just one thread per civilization, wont we? It's also a new book. Even if I personally doubt intuitively Mesopotamians were Africans (I never studied the issue), it's ok to talk about it.
mena7 Member # 20555
posted
Mike I never have enough black history books. There will never be enough black history books about Egypt, Sumer, Kush, Moors, Olmec etc.Those books increase my selfestime and make me happy.Ebooks are very affordable.
Dr Clyde Winters, Djehuti or Amenra the ultimate need to rate and review Mr Helmstein black Sumer v1 book in Amazon kindle.Im not done reading black Sumer yet.
Mike you have a nice website real history ww.com you need to take it to the next level and write a illustrated ebook. Mainstream Scholars will have the opportunity to review your work.
Mike111 Member # 9361
posted
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Why not? We won't have just one thread per civilization, wont we? It's also a new book. Even if I personally doubt intuitively Mesopotamians were Africans (I never studied the issue), it's ok to talk about it.
Actually your response is more worthy of discussion than the book. You say that you "doubt it intuitively": well that means that in your mind there is ill-defined criteria that does not match. Assuming that your words and opinions are genuine, as opposed to some here who seek to promote an agenda, Why don't you talk about the perceptions that you have about those civilizations?
the lioness, Member # 17353
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^We already have many old threads on the Mesopotamian civilizations. You have been here for five years, so you must have seen some of them, so why are you pushing this book?
He is affiliated with the publishing of the book and thinks it's valuable information
Clyde Winters Member # 10129
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^We already have many old threads on the Mesopotamian civilizations. You have been here for five years, so you must have seen some of them, so why are you pushing this book?
Because it was written by a European. And as you know, among most Blacks, if the white man says it it must be true. LOL.
.
Mike111 Member # 9361
posted
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Because it was written by a European. And as you know, among most Blacks, if the white man says it it must be true. LOL.
Do you know anything about this Hermel Hermstein person?
Clyde Winters Member # 10129
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Because it was written by a European. And as you know, among most Blacks, if the white man says it it must be true. LOL.
Do you know anything about this Hermel Hermstein person?
Not much. Back in the day we posted at the old ANE site when it was published by the Oriental Institue.
We both posted on the Blacks of Eurasia.
.
beyoku Member # 14524
posted
Its all good to peddle your own book around here but please be forthright in letting people know that this IS YOUR BOOK.
That said, the last book I bought of yours hypothesizing an African origin of Eden spent nearly half the book talking about the Sudanic influences of Ancient Egypt. I think I will pass.
Amun-Ra The Ultimate Member # 20039
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Why not? We won't have just one thread per civilization, wont we? It's also a new book. Even if I personally doubt intuitively Mesopotamians were Africans (I never studied the issue), it's ok to talk about it.
Actually your response is more worthy of discussion than the book. You say that you "doubt it intuitively": well that means that in your mind there is ill-defined criteria that does not match. Assuming that your words and opinions are genuine, as opposed to some here who seek to promote an agenda, Why don't you talk about the perceptions that you have about those civilizations?
It's just that if you talk to me about lets say a Russian civilization, my intuitive thinking is that it was built by Russian people. Not that it was Africans who built it and were later invaded by caucasian Russians. It feels like a cheap way to steal other people's legacy. Like what other people tried to do to us with Ancient Egypt, Great Zimbabwe/Mapungubwe/Khami, etc.
Clyde Winters Member # 10129
posted
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Why not? We won't have just one thread per civilization, wont we? It's also a new book. Even if I personally doubt intuitively Mesopotamians were Africans (I never studied the issue), it's ok to talk about it.
Actually your response is more worthy of discussion than the book. You say that you "doubt it intuitively": well that means that in your mind there is ill-defined criteria that does not match. Assuming that your words and opinions are genuine, as opposed to some here who seek to promote an agenda, Why don't you talk about the perceptions that you have about those civilizations?
It's just that if you talk to me about lets say a Russian civilization, my intuitive thinking is that it was built by Russian people. Not that it was Africans who built it and were later invaded by caucasian Russians. It feels like a cheap way to steal other people's legacy. Like what other people tried to do to us with Ancient Egypt, Great Zimbabwe/Khami, etc.
This is why intuition has nothing to do with science. LOL. This is a naive view of history and anthropology.
Just because a population lives in a region today does not mean they have always been there. For example, the anthropological and genetic evidence indicates that modern and ancient Europeans are not the same populations. Moreover, Arab speakers live in egypt today, but the genetic, anthropological and linguistic evidence makes it clear the ancient Egyptians were Sub-Saharan Africans.
Given, the evidence of differences between modern and ancient populations , when you deny the continuity between these populations you are not stealing anyones history, you are just stating a fact.
This is why you have to take a course in Research Methods when you earn a graduate degree. During my many years of teaching graduate Research Method courses I have always taught my students to become expert consumers of the research literature so they can understand what they read and do good research. When you don't know how to judge the literature, you are left to depend on intuition.
Stop trying to compare lying Eurocentrists to truth seekers.
.
Amun-Ra The Ultimate Member # 20039
posted
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Why not? We won't have just one thread per civilization, wont we? It's also a new book. Even if I personally doubt intuitively Mesopotamians were Africans (I never studied the issue), it's ok to talk about it.
Actually your response is more worthy of discussion than the book. You say that you "doubt it intuitively": well that means that in your mind there is ill-defined criteria that does not match. Assuming that your words and opinions are genuine, as opposed to some here who seek to promote an agenda, Why don't you talk about the perceptions that you have about those civilizations?
It's just that if you talk to me about lets say a Russian civilization, my intuitive thinking is that it was built by Russian people. Not that it was Africans who built it and were later invaded by caucasian Russians. It feels like a cheap way to steal other people's legacy. Like what other people tried to do to us with Ancient Egypt, Great Zimbabwe/Khami, etc.
This is why intuition has nothing to do with science. LOL. This is a naive view of history and anthropology.
Just because a population lives in a region today does not mean they have always been there. For example, the anthropological and genetic evidence indicates that modern and ancient Europeans are not the same populations. Moreover, Arab speakers live in egypt today, but the genetic, anthropological and linguistic evidence makes it clear the ancient Egyptians were Sub-Saharan Africans.
Given, the evidence of differences between modern and ancient populations , when you deny the continuity between these populations you are not stealing anyones history, you are just stating a fact.
This is why you have to take a course in Research Methods when you earn a graduate degree. During my many years of teaching graduate Research Method courses I have always taught my students to become expert consumers of the research literature so they can understand what they read and do good research. When you don't know how to judge the literature, you are left to depend on intuition.
Stop trying to compare lying Eurocentrists to truth seekers.
.
That's fair. That's why I said "intuitively" and that I didn't study it. At the moment, I'm more interested in studying continental African cultures and civilizations, from the Green Saharan civilization (which you call Maa Civilization) to Mapungubwe/Great Zimbabwe passing by Kongo, Benin, Ancient Egypt, Kush, Baganda, etc ,etc but studies such as yours outside Africa are also interesting as long as they are based on researching the truth.
It's a bit off topic but why do you call the Ancient Saharan civilization the "Maa" civilization?
mena7 Member # 20555
posted
Clyde is right Anthropologue, geneticist, Archeologue have indicate that white people migrated to Europe from the Russian steppes from 1200 BC to 500 CE.It look like the original black European who didnt mixed with the white and were not genocided by the white Eurasian migrated to Africa.The so call bantu migration and the peopling of C,S,E Africa might be the migration of black european and West Asian fleing white EuroAsian invasion of their homeland.
AmunRa the ultimate why you call the Zimbabwe civilization Khami.
Clyde Winters Member # 10129
posted
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Why not? We won't have just one thread per civilization, wont we? It's also a new book. Even if I personally doubt intuitively Mesopotamians were Africans (I never studied the issue), it's ok to talk about it.
Actually your response is more worthy of discussion than the book. You say that you "doubt it intuitively": well that means that in your mind there is ill-defined criteria that does not match. Assuming that your words and opinions are genuine, as opposed to some here who seek to promote an agenda, Why don't you talk about the perceptions that you have about those civilizations?
It's just that if you talk to me about lets say a Russian civilization, my intuitive thinking is that it was built by Russian people. Not that it was Africans who built it and were later invaded by caucasian Russians. It feels like a cheap way to steal other people's legacy. Like what other people tried to do to us with Ancient Egypt, Great Zimbabwe/Khami, etc.
This is why intuition has nothing to do with science. LOL. This is a naive view of history and anthropology.
Just because a population lives in a region today does not mean they have always been there. For example, the anthropological and genetic evidence indicates that modern and ancient Europeans are not the same populations. Moreover, Arab speakers live in egypt today, but the genetic, anthropological and linguistic evidence makes it clear the ancient Egyptians were Sub-Saharan Africans.
Given, the evidence of differences between modern and ancient populations , when you deny the continuity between these populations you are not stealing anyones history, you are just stating a fact.
This is why you have to take a course in Research Methods when you earn a graduate degree. During my many years of teaching graduate Research Method courses I have always taught my students to become expert consumers of the research literature so they can understand what they read and do good research. When you don't know how to judge the literature, you are left to depend on intuition.
Stop trying to compare lying Eurocentrists to truth seekers.
.
That's fair. That's why I said "intuitively" and that I didn't study it. At the moment, I'm more interested in studying continental African cultures and civilizations, from the Green Saharan civilization (which you call Maa Civilization) to Mapungubwe/Great Zimbabwe passing by Kongo, Benin, Ancient Egypt, Kush, Baganda, etc ,etc but studies such as yours outside Africa are also interesting as long as they are based on researching the truth.
It's a bit off topic but why do you call the Ancient Saharan civilization the "Maa" civilization?
The French scholar Desplagnes (1906) noted that the people of Middle Africa claimed they once belonged to a great civilization called: Maa. As a result I call the ancient civilization of the Niger-Congo speakers: Maa.
.
Amun-Ra The Ultimate Member # 20039
posted
quote:Originally posted by mena7: AmunRa the ultimate why you call the Zimbabwe civilization Khami.
Do a google search on Khami.
Mapungubwe/Great Zimbabwe/Khami are the same civilization at different location (at different time). I just like to show the historic evolution (before, during, after) of the Great Zimbabwean civilization.
Amun-Ra The Ultimate Member # 20039
posted
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The French scholar Desplagnes (1906) noted that the people of Middle Africa claimed they once belonged to a great civilization called: Maa. As a result I call the ancient civilization of the Niger-Congo speakers: Maa.
.
Thank you.
mena7 Member # 20555
posted
Amenra the ultimate your theory of Mapungubwe/Zimbabwe/Khami is similar to Marc Washington CAPSEMO theory that one group of black people probably Kushite and Canaanite created civilization in Africa, West Asia and Europe.They used different tribal and ethnic names.
I read somewhere that the Great Zimbabwe monuments look like Phoenician/Canaanite monuments in the Italian Island of Sardinia.
Amun-Ra The Ultimate Member # 20039
posted
quote:Originally posted by mena7: Amenra the ultimate your theory of Mapungubwe/Zimbabwe/Khami is similar to Marc Washington CAPSEMO theory that one group of black people probably Kushite and Canaanite created civilization in Africa, West Asia and Europe.They used different tribal and ethnic names.
I read somewhere that the Great Zimbabwe monuments look like Phoenician/Canaanite monuments in the Italian Island of Sardinia.
There's such thing as reading too much...
JujuMan Member # 6729
posted
Amun-Ra The Ultimate Member # 20039
posted
LOL
lamin Member # 5777
posted
quote:Europeans are not the same populations. Moreover, Arab speakers live in egypt today, but the genetic, anthropological and linguistic evidence makes it clear the ancient Egyptians were Sub-Saharan Africans.
You keep using the term "sub-Saharan" African. Thought you would know better. Is that what the whites taught you.
Herodotus, Aristotle and other Greeks described the Ancient Egyptians as you would describe an indigenous African. Just say "Africans". White anthropologists, of course, would say differently.
Based on how the AEs portrayed themselves, Asians and Europeans it is evident that they did not see them as resembling Africans. Or maybe you think that the AEs were wrong.
mena7 Member # 20555
posted
Black Sumer two have two volumes. Black Sumer 2 V1 about the morphology of the Sumerian and black Sumer 2 V2 about the arts and eyewitness description of the Sumerian.
Mike111 Member # 9361
posted
quote:Originally posted by lamin:
quote:Europeans are not the same populations. Moreover, Arab speakers live in egypt today, but the genetic, anthropological and linguistic evidence makes it clear the ancient Egyptians were Sub-Saharan Africans.
You keep using the term "sub-Saharan" African. Thought you would know better. Is that what the whites taught you.
Herodotus, Aristotle and other Greeks described the Ancient Egyptians as you would describe an indigenous African. Just say "Africans". White anthropologists, of course, would say differently.
Based on how the AEs portrayed themselves, Asians and Europeans it is evident that they did not see them as resembling Africans. Or maybe you think that the AEs were wrong.
So then Mr. lamin, are you suggesting that AEs looked like THESE people. Or are you saying that these people are not Africans?
The Amazigh
Let's not forget the other Albinos and Mulattoes crawling all over North Africa, do you include them too? Are they Africans?
lamin Member # 5777
posted
Stop asking dumb questions. Go back and check in your spam records how the AEs portrayed themselves and other Africans and how they portrayed the West Asians and Europeans.
I answer your final question with a question: are white South Africans "African"? I would say no.
Some North Africans are African some are not. Some are West Asian settler Arabs who brought in their colonial language. Others are of European-Arab background as with people who are Greek-Arab or French-Arab or even British-Arab background(Sadat's and Mubarak's children). Others too are of West Asian Muslim background. Note too that the Romans/Italians had colonised places like Libya twice--first during the Roman Empire, then during the Italian colonial push into Libya.
But the original North Africans dating from the dispersal of Africans to all parts of the continent were African.
posted ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
