...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Response Against Great Zimbabwe Being Black
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Archeopteryx: [QB] [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......[/QUOTE]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 But unfortunately some African Americans continue to uphold outdated racial models, as for example when they draw the conclusion that the Olmecs where African based on the look on the famous stone heads which are just a fraction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 [/QUOTE]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. [/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