U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-05-2012, 04:55 PM
 
Location: Midwest
2,953 posts, read 4,673,908 times
Reputation: 1957

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion View Post
The main thing about the Olmec stone heads that causes some people to view them as possibly being African are that the faces of the stone heads do resemble those of many Black Africans. But that may only be an superfical resemblance. If compared to the faces of many Mexican natives you can also see similarities between the stone heads and those of some Mexican natives.


Here's an example:



Face of a True Descendant of the Olmec - YouTube
You cannot compare the modern Mexican natives to the ancient Olmecs because they have intermixed for centuries with other ethnicities. There is a slight resemblance but the Mexican guy is no where near as African looking as the Olmec stone head for obvious reasons
Rate this post positively

 
Old 01-06-2012, 01:50 PM
 
5,510 posts, read 5,047,485 times
Reputation: 1693
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyanna View Post
You cannot compare the modern Mexican natives to the ancient Olmecs because they have intermixed for centuries with other ethnicities. There is a slight resemblance but the Mexican guy is no where near as African looking as the Olmec stone head for obvious reasons
So you're saying the Olmecs were obviously African, perhaps Nubian in particular?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Yes, and the evidence weighs heavily in favor of Olmecs or their predecessors being of African origin.



No DNA testing has been done to verify or refute claims, and there is an over-abundance of evidence of African origin.

Even if you could categorically disprove that Olmecs were of African origin, you are still left with the reality of cultural contact with Africans.

You completely ignore the oral histories and myths of many Meso-American groups who claim the Olmecs were from Africa. You also readily dismiss Sumerian texts which state with authority that Africans went to the Americas.

There are many, many archaeologists and anthropologists who subscribe to the African origin theory, and many of them are white.
Wow, with so much info out there, its curious you did post any link or make a specific reference to a peer reviewed text/article?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-06-2012, 05:19 PM
 
Location: Midwest
2,953 posts, read 4,673,908 times
Reputation: 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
So you're saying the Olmecs were obviously African, perhaps Nubian in particular?
Yes. it's quite obvious looking at the stone heads. Just like many modern day Black Americans don't look like they did 150 years ago. It's like taking a photo of Vanessa Williams and stating that most Black women looked like her 200 years ago in America.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-07-2012, 11:10 AM
 
5,510 posts, read 5,047,485 times
Reputation: 1693
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyanna View Post
Yes. it's quite obvious looking at the stone heads. Just like many modern day Black Americans don't look like they did 150 years ago. It's like taking a photo of Vanessa Williams and stating that most Black women looked like her 200 years ago in America.
My, you seem quite sure that the Olmecs were really Nubians.

Got a couple of questions for ya though:

1. Other than the stone heads, what else makes you believe so strongly that the Olmecs were Nubians?

2. Just how did the Nubians get to the Americas in the 1st place, especially since the Nile Valley is halfway around the world?

3. Did the indigenous Americans play any role in the Olmec civilization or was most of the Americas populated by "black Africans" in the 1st place?

Inquiring minds want to know.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-11-2012, 11:59 PM
 
7,011 posts, read 9,765,019 times
Reputation: 3171
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post

Just how did the Nubians get to the Americas in the 1st place, especially since the Nile Valley is halfway around the world?
Since Egypt and Nubia are located in North east Africa anyone from those areas traveling to the Americas would have to sail down the east African coast go around south Africa and travel up to Mexico from the Atlantic. That sounds like a long as trip.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-28-2012, 11:24 AM
 
Location: America
6,993 posts, read 16,025,966 times
Reputation: 2083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion View Post
As far as the Sumerians of Mesopotamia.

Can you point to any Sumerian artwork where they portray themselves as black people? Most Sumerian artwork I've seen portray themselves as non black and probably looking similar to Iraq's current population.

examples:

http://tarotcanada.org/sumerian.jpg

http://www.zwoje-scrolls.com/zwoje35/sh05.jpg


As for the Sumerian language being the same as that of Kush/Nubia. Well to this day linguist aren't even sure how to classify the Sumerian language so I don't see how their language can be the same as the Nubian language which is classified as a known Nilo-Saharan language.

When did the Greeks see the Sumerians and write about them? The Sumerians were long gone before the Greeks developed a civilization.
Read the works of H. Rawlingson, specifically "Memoirs of Cuneform" he is the man that cracked the cuneiform writing system and he tells you in his book what language he used to crack it. He also explains who the people were based on archeological evidence. You can get the book for free on google books.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-28-2012, 12:12 PM
 
Location: America
6,993 posts, read 16,025,966 times
Reputation: 2083
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA View Post
They painted themselves Brown. Black Americans need to get over this notion that everyone on the planet with Brown skin is "Black".


white man tells truth black egypt - YouTube

Cleopatra and ancient egypt info

Sally-Ann Ashton speaking at Egypt in its African Context, 3-4 October 2009 Manchester Museum. - YouTube (part 1)


Sally-Ann Ashton at the conference, Egypt in its African Context, 3-4 October 2009. Part 2 - YouTube (part 2)

THis last one, watch with this in mind. 1. People, NOT scholars, claim ancient egyptians were middle eastern/semitic (laughable) yet they built no great civilizations in the middle east or europe or asia as old as Ancient Kemet (egypt) or Ta-seti or Kush. Yet we are to believe they magically came into Egypt and built something they could not build in their own homelands? LOL, please. Mesopotamia wasn't even a empire or kingdom they were states at best and even those people who built it were not ingenious to that area. For proof on that read Memoirs of Cuneiform by Rawlinson. You can get that book on google books for free. Also, if you want to know what the ancient egyptians looked like go read the Histories by Herodotus (also free on google books). He states very clearly that the ancient egyptians were Ethiopian in appearance. Ethiopian was a GREEK word and it means negro, nothing else. It was applied to the whole of africa. Present day Ethiopia changed its name to that in the 1970s. Prior to that it was Hebasha or Abbasynia, so lets not confuse them with the people Herodotus called Ethiopian.

Anyway, for the oldest kingdom on the continent of Africa (which egypt is a part of) see this


Nubia: The black kingdoms of the Nile 6#6 - YouTube!

Ta-seti the kingdom to the South of current day egypt which was in northern sudan had Hieroglyphics first, had pharaohs first, and temples and the Osirian religion, first. Also, the first king of Egypt Menes came from the SOUTH. The kingdoms were for the most part always centered in Upper Egypt which is Southern egypt. Today just like 3,000 years ago, Southern Egypt is Black, Black African.

ALso here is a part 1 of a 8 part series conducted in Britain by a Professor that provides DNA and limb ratio proof that shows ancient egyptians were black africans. Limb Ratios of Africans are not the same as Semitic or europeans or asians so you can tell from that. Also the skull shows this as well, Anyway here is that video:


S.O.Y. Keita - Origins and Misconceptions of Egypt and Nile Valley inhabitants - YouTube

Generally when people provide proof that the ancient egyptians weren't black they show pictures of some unknown art, from some unknown source, of unknown authenticity. It is by far one of the most silliest ways to argue a point. The best way is to use science via dna, limb ratio, cultural comparisons etc.

We also know the religion is very much a african religion in terms of concepts, myths, eschatology etc. A good book to read on that is Egypt the Light of the World by G. Massey. Also compare and contrast ancient Semitic religions (not the ones that were derived from the Egyptian religion like Judaism, Christianity or Islam) and see if they are similar to the egyptian belief. Then compare and contrast ancient nile valley religions.

I can't provide as much google info as I can actual books because thats where I get my info from. So anyone up for reading, I can provide a number of books and authors that will explain what I am telling you. I think the best starting point though is G. Massey and also Cheik Anta Diop. Another very good book to read is Black Genesis by Robert Buval who shows from archeological evidence that the same deities and religion present in Egypt were present in the Sahara (when it was a green land and not a desert).

here is a video on the green sahara


The Origin of Egyptian Civilization PT.1 - YouTube

In the pictures you will see on the walls, you will see chariots with WHEELS and guess what, that was 7 or 8 thousand years ago and that is older than mesopotamia who supposedly created the wheel. They have even found old paintings of what looks to be the Egyptian Neter Anubis. They also found a statue of what looks like the Neter Hathor. But again we are talking THOUSANDS of years before Ancient Egypt. And yes, these were Africans, because they painted themselves as black africans. Also, they have found mummies and skulls that show limb ratios and such which are black african.

Even today in the north african countries the southern halves of these countries are still black. For example Libya to this day is about 50% black. The whites in north africa are the descendants of invaders. Specifically Visigoths, romans, greeks, later arabs, turks etc.

Info the oldest mummy in Africa and who the people were
Mystery of the Black Mummy - Ancient Civilizations - YouTube

The son of Ghaddafi talks about the current day demographics of Libya

Talk to Al Jazeera - Saif al-Islam Gaddafi - YouTube

Lastly let me add this guy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvJ0...layer_embedded

People need to read history. You can not judge what the people of today in N. Africa look like and think it will be applied to ancient times. We are talking around 300 or 200 BC when Ancient Egypt fell. From that time on you had a FLOOD of foreigners coming in. You had Assyrians who ruled, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks, British all coming in over 2,000 years and mixing and reproducing. One must read and understand history. When you do that then you will understand what is the ancient EGyptian as opposed to the modern day WHITE egyptian who is little more than a mixed person whose families came from else where. It is the same in places like Lebanon too, the home of the ancient Phoenicians. Many Lebanese try to claim Phoenician decent yet less than 20% of them have Phoenician DNA, so then who are the current Lebanese and who were the ancient Phoenicians? Well if we know history we can answer that. Herodotus saw the ancient Phoenicians and he clearly said who they were and what they looked like, also they (Phoenicians) left statues, and I assure you those statues do not look like modern day lebs lol. History is a funny thing but very interesting none the less.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-28-2012, 12:44 PM
 
13,970 posts, read 20,186,466 times
Reputation: 23431
Somewhat off-topic response. At least we can continue a related topic without starting a new thread by trolls, and without specifying certain actions recently taken - I love being right about so called "new" users!

Continue on.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-28-2012, 07:10 PM
 
605 posts, read 1,327,860 times
Reputation: 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
There isn't s shred of genetic evidence supporting direct African origins of the Olmecs or any other indigenous group in south or central America.

Ya I agree. The Olmecs were not Africans, whats up with all the threads claiming everyone is African?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 02-03-2012, 01:23 PM
 
5,510 posts, read 5,047,485 times
Reputation: 1693
As someone who has a strong interest in the cultures and civilizations of the Sahara and who is well aware of the way this region's past has been distorted and marginalized for the past few centuries I can emphasize with those that have an interest in the history of the Americas.

So although I am primarily into Saharan history I have ran across enough information to debunk the inverted pseudo-science and history the Afronuts and their sympathizers have been pushing in this thread.

The indigenous peoples of what is now called the American Great lakes region were among the earliest people to begin using copper. These peoples use of metals goes back to at least 6,000 B.C.E. The populations of what would become Alaska, Yukon and Latin America also took advantage of metals.

Jack Forbes mentions a folk tradition crediting the founding of a Dutch coastal city to an Inuit (Eskimo). Forbes also notes the indigenous Americans were excellent navigators constructing crafts capable not only of traveling between the Caribbean islands and the mainland, but those on the Pacific coast were capable of building vessels that could reach Polynesia.

The Inuit may have also been instrumental in the development of whaling and the use of skin covered boats in medieval and early modern Europe.

To sum up, the indigenous Americans were perfectly able to develop societies, technologies and civilizations no matter how much it hurts Afronuts (and other pseudo-scientific/historical racialists) sense of self and their esteem. And even in the event of contacts with others, it appears to be the case in the Pacific and northern Europe, that the indigenous Americans might not only have been the ones to initiate contact but introduced new skills and technology.

Now one might ask what would possess a group that is constantly whining and crying about how their history has been stolen to so blatantly attempt to do the same thing to a group that quite frankly, has just a great if not greater claim to historical mistreatment over the past few centuries. So let us take a closer look to see where these clowns are coming from.

Not only did this one disappear into the mist when asked about evidence for African Olmecs, she did not even have the courage to publicly admit she was an Afrocentric in the 1st place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
I just thought I'd mention that for the benefit of others, that this theory was not proffered by the idiot Afro-centric morons who make claims like flying Negroes (with wings attached them -- like angels) built the pyramids and then white men came and killed all of the flying Negroes (actual theory taught in both public and private schools here in Cincinnati and elsewhere as part of Afro-centric curricula).
This one seems to be cut from the same cloth as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyanna View Post
You cannot compare the modern Mexican natives to the ancient Olmecs because they have intermixed for centuries with other ethnicities. There is a slight resemblance but the Mexican guy is no where near as African looking as the Olmec stone head for obvious reasons
And when I asked her to specifically about "Nubian" Olmecs:

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyanna View Post
Yes. it's quite obvious looking at the stone heads. Just like many modern day Black Americans don't look like they did 150 years ago. It's like taking a photo of Vanessa Williams and stating that most Black women looked like her 200 years ago in America.
And just like her ideological soul sister, once feel good belief was confronted logic and reality, she too disappeared into the mist.

Albeit this character is not from this thread, but he too is not far from the same ideological tree:

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
At the least she had a mixed of Native Egyptian and Greek ancestry. But to say that she was 100% white with absolutely no possibility of having any African ancestry is just ignorant and very Eurocentric.
Apparently according to this character, I am ignorant and Eurocentric because I too hold that Cleo was of hellene ancestry and there is no evidence to show otherwise. Unless this guy has top secret information or psychic powers where he can claim he knows the "truth" about Cleo's family history. Or could it just be that whoever and whatever does not make him feel good is ignorant and Eurocentric?

Now this post one might see as neutral:

But on closer examination from another thread where because some schools stress high academic standards they are accused of being racist, there was this statement:

Quote:
What about the aspect of sports? Meaning, maybe many Black/Latino students might go to schools that may have good sports programs, even if they could get into Stuyvesant or other specialized schools that may have low percentages of both groups. Same point applies to other extracurricular activities.
So rather than parents stressing academics and activities that would allow their kids to be able to get into schools like Stuyvesant, Stuyvesant and other schools should consider changing their standards to allow for parents and their children who don't stress academics to feel good about themselves for getting into (now not so) specialized schools.

Starting to notice a pattern?

And this one is the worst of them all:

Its important to discuss Ms. Ashton at this point in time and place.

Throughout my posts and threads in this history forum I have often wrote about the legacy of colonialism and its affect on academia, particularly the way in which the Sahara and related regions have been regarded.

The knuckle head New Ager babbling about roving Russians and space men; the comments about green Indians; Alexander Hamilton; Marxists, blonds that have either magically transported themselves from northern Europe and/or somehow evolved in the UV high Sahara; and accusations about me being an evil liberal elitist all have their origin (whether those making these ridiculous claims were conscious of it or not) in that legacy.

It would be wrong to say that academia has not evolved over the last 50 years or so and I have noticed that Egyptology, Africana studies and now the growing field of human evolution and Out of Africa migrations, Saharan studies, Nubiology and articles/books being published on the Arabian peninsula have rocked most, if not all of the colonial myths to its core.

It is very important for academics like Ms. Ashton to emphasize that Kmt/Kemi/Ta Meri/Tawy (Egypt) should be placed in an African context, but they should also ensure that its placed in its proper African context, and by that I explicitly and emphatically mean the Saharan and eastern African regions.

Colonial ideology tried to separate the Nile Delta from the Nile Valley. The Upper Egyptian Nile Valley from the Nubian Nile Valley. The Nile from the deserts surrounding it and the Tell of the Maghrib from the desert proper.

Thankfully modern scholars are now realizing that the Tell and the Nile should be seen as oases of the Sahra and the Sahra should not be seen as an impassable barrier especially in relation to the regions of the Horn, lake Chad, the Niger and the Senegal.

Those that try to divorce Tawy from its Saharan and east African context and place it in Gabon are just as bad as the knuckle head marauding Russian theorists.

Ms. Ashton seemed to doing a sleight of hand by encouraging West Africans (by this I take it she means those well south of the waterways of Senegal and Niger), Jamaicans (by and large descendants of west Africans) and Black British (have no clue what she means by this, though she distinguishes this group from the previous 2) to see themselves as the heirs to Tawy, while conveniently ignoring that there are present day groups that have a much more legitimate claim.

Frankly, I don't hear (though that does not mean it doesn't happen, but if it does its not as often and as annoyingly loud) that Alaskan and other North American indigenous groups claim that the monumental civilizations in the southern Americas were the work of their ancestors and the people now there have no claims to it.

Do North American aboriginals say, look at Shakira, look at Ricky Martin, look at Ricky Ricardo, those people down there are Spainards, they speak Spanish, my ancestors were great kings and queens like the Olmecs, Mayans and Incas?

Do Alaskan Inuits claim to be descendants and cousins of Mongol warriors, Japanese shoguns and Chinese emperors?

Do North American aboriginals claim to be the heirs to the great civilizations of Asia and the southern Americas even moreso than modern day groups living in these regions who have demonstrated biological and cultural links to their respective ancient predecessors?

Possibly, but not nearly as much as the Afronuts.

Honestly, these people are not interested in history, they are not interested in social justice, they are not interested in learning about ancient civilizations, nor more recent history like the movement of MLK to have all Americans be judged by the content of their character.

These people are just lazy bastards, who reek of the stench of entitlement.

They feel that society owes them something and that they deserve the world on a silver platter, though they sure as hell don't want to work for it.

They can't read, can't think. They can only feel and G*d d@mn it, they demand that they should be able to steal from others in order to make themselves feel good. It is their right, what theirs is theirs and whats yours is theirs as well.

I feel Ms. Ashton would be doing a major disservice to academia in regards to the study of African history and the progress it has made in recent decades in moving away from baseless colonial thinking by making people feel entitled and that they can steal from other people.

Enabling Afronuts does not do anything to uplift anybody. They won't be satisfied until the whole world is as destitute and as miserable as they are.

Rewarding failure and dumbing things down does not do a thing to reverse historical inequities, it justs makes everyone a loser in the long run.

So once again as someone who has studied Saharan history, I am well aware of how certain regions have been mistreated by academia due to modern notions. I'm sure there is much more to the history of indigenous American naval and monumental construction achievements, and I hope those in the know out there can help rehabilitate this thread by elaborating on them.

Last edited by kovert; 02-03-2012 at 01:43 PM..
Rate this post positively
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.



All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top