...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
Spreading falsehood to the children.
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] Who are Europeans to point fingers at Africans in terms of "stealing" history, culture, identity or anything else? Who stole the Americas from the natives? It wasn't Africans. Who stole the history and culture from them? Who stole the gold, land, plants, animals and architecture? Not to mention the fact that concerning the Olmecs, how come is it that only after Africans started looking into it, all of a sudden they claim to care about the aboriginal history and identity of the Americas. Really? And even more than that, if they have all this knowledge of the diversity in phenotype of the Natives of the Americas then why were the European colonizers claiming the Olmec features are foreign? Why are they all of a sudden now digging up all these examples of indigenous people with similar features and why didn't they do it 100 years ago? Surely those features existed. Why is it only now after all this attention they are admitting to the diversity of the natives of the Americas which goes against any simplistic attempts at racial categorization? The reason is because their racial theories are pseudeoscience and have always been pseudoscience and as such their past descriptions and assumptions are bound by such pseudoscience. Don't blame this on Africans when Europeans have been touting the superiority of their "science" for all these years. If there were always dark skinned natives with big lips in the Americas, then why did it take so long for them to admit to it? Sounds like they are full of sh*t, because they know full well they never cared about native diversity except in terms of theories of skin color superiority. Hence: [QUOTE] In truth, up to the present, the question of primitive man in Argentina has always stemmed from the Ameghinian idea, only to develop in two opposite directions and to arrive at antagonistic conclusions. On the one hand, it is admitted that the American aborigine could have been native and that his ancestors, while not so far remote as Ameghino claimed, evolved during the pampas age, totally or partially Quaternary, along with the mammals which were so characteristic of the same geological period. On the other hand, it is argued that the Argentine aborigines, like their kin throughout America, are more or less recent immigrants and that, consequently, the antluopological remains dug from the pampas belong to these immigrants who were accidentally (through removal or burial) in terred with the remains of Typotherium, Toxodon, Mastodon, Mega therium, Megalonix, Glyptodon, etc. [b]Within this second trend of ideas the opposite extreme was reached by reducing all the American peoples to one race and searching for the origin of their stock among the Egyptians, Sumerians, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Trojans, Basques, Tartars, Chinese, etc. According to A. Hrdlicka, for example, his "American homotype" was probably derived from Mongoloids who, moving from the extreme east of Asia, reached the far west of America through Bermg Strait and from there no doubt scattered as far as Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego. Elliot Smith, however, held that a "heliolithic civilization" leaving Egypt crossed Asia and the Pacific, and then, moving from island to island, reached America and, in its spread toward the south, was deterred only by the inhospitable barrier of the Antarctic ice sheets.[/b] [b]Along the same trend of thought but on a more logical basis, other authors maintained that the peopling of America could have been accomplished only by successive waves of anthropologically and ethnographically diverse elements, in different periods of time and from many different regions. Among those who upheld this idea we may name Griffith Taylor, R. B. Dixon, Von Eickstedt, E. W. Count, and others. However, in order to keep within hypotheses which have more direct bearing on the problem in Argentina, it is more appropriate to mention P. Eivet and J. Imbelloni.[/b] The theory of P. Rivet (1924 e, 1926 a, 1926 b) derives from an old idea of G. d'Eichthal concerning the predominance of the "Oceanic races" in the peopling of America, and of the ties between "Oceanics" and Americans, which have been verified by well-known ethnographers and corroborated by his own investigations in the fields of anthropol ogy, ethnography (archeology), and linguistics. On this basis he claims that the peopling of America was effected through Pacific water routes, in different eras and by countless waves of ethnically different elements, whose origin must be sought in the extreme southeast of Asia and in the Indo-Malayan Archipelago. Furthermore, he declares that the first arrivals of these elements on the coasts of America occurred in an epoch no earlier than the end of the Quaternary, i. e., when the continent's present contours had already become fixed. With this theory Rivet denies the authenticity of the discoveries attributed to paleolithic man in America in general and in Argentina in particular; further, he does not accept any route from hypothetical Atlantic and Pacific continents of pre-Quaternary times. Again the complete ignorance throughout all of pre-Columbian America of the use of iron and writing, as well as of no less fundamental elements, such as the wheel, glass, wheat, etc., enable him to deny flatly any theory which , for the populating of America, resorts to ancient inhabitants of the Mediterranean area and to direct influences from civilized peoples of eastern Asia. According to Rivet, the principal groups which contributed successively to forming the primitive population of America were, in the order of their arrival, the following: An Australian element ; an element of Malayo-Polynesian speech resemblmg in physical characteristics the Melanesian group; an Asiatic element in which can be distinguished a Uralian (Eskimo) admixture; and a Sino-Tibetan (Na-Dene) element. Rivet does not fix the dates of the successive arrivals; but, on the suggestion of A. Mendes-Correa, supposes that the first inhabitants, the Australians, landed in the extreme south of South America and wandered along the borders of the Antarctic during the recession of the ice sheets, at the time of the postglacial optimum approximately 6,000 years ago. Along similar ideas, Imbelloni's theory also considers the peopling of America as the result of countless migratory waves in different epochs from the Pacific and near-Pacific regions. He disagrees, however, on essential points. Like Rivet, he denies both the "American homotype" of Hrdlicka's pan-Mongoloidism and Ameghino's monogenism; but he explains the great number of American races by new arguments, including serology, and he admits, although vaguely, that America, like the rest of the habitable world, might have sheltered human life from the time of the Pleistocene age. He contemplates a primitive Australoid prototype, but conceives it as evolving from an archaic human creature which dominated the Asia-Pacific world and which spread through America from north to south, to the very limits of Tierra del Fuego. He accepts a Malayo-Polynesian contingent, but separated into numerous elements of very dissimilar type. And he adds another migratory element: the Indonesian, source of the Mayan civilization (and its derivatives). Imbelloni's theory is that with the passing of time these different groups appeared in succession with the following physical character istics: Short dolicoids, Tasmanian in appearance and culture, from whom evolved the Fueguido and Ldguido; tall dolicoids, Australoids, nomadic hunters from whom the Pldnido and Pdmpido developed; ultra-dolichocephalics of short stature, Melanesoids, hunters and gatherers, together with less pronounced dolicoid elements of the proto-Indonesian type, weavers and agriculturists, from whom originated the Amazonido) brachycephalics of medium height. Mongoloids, bringers of higher forms of agriculture and of patrilineal institutions, represented by the Pueblo- Andino ; ultra-brachycephaUcs and brachycephalics artistically endowed and the creators of states, from whom stemmed the Istmido and their metastases; finally, the last contingents, Columbido and Eskimo.[/QUOTE] https://archive.org/details/bulletin14361950smit/page/12/mode/1up Showing that these theories about various groups arriving in the Americas from different places over time has always been part of the discussion of the origins of the indigenous Americans. This is not "Afrocentric" at all and the idea that sailors from other regions whether it be the Mediterranean, Oceania or elsewhere has also been included as possibilities. To sit here and claim that all of this is new or somehow came from "Afrocentrics" is just flat out false and nothing more than slander against African scholarship, trying to defend and uphold Europeans as the "sole" authority on history when they have been the biggest promoters of falsehoods, misinformation, pseudoscience and other forms of propaganda ever seen. Images to go along with the text: [IMG]https://ia800205.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/12/items/bulletin14361950smit/bulletin14361950smit_jp2.zip&file=bulletin14361950smit_jp2/bulletin14361950smit_0100.jp2&id=bulletin14361950smit&scale=2&rotate=0[/IMG] https://archive.org/details/bulletin14361950smit/page/n99/mode/1up And here is the full text from Elliot Grafton Smith talking of the Heliocentric culture that spread around the world: https://archive.org/details/migrationsofearl00smitrich/page/n11/mode/1up [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3