Black Contributions/History Omitted from White Textbooks
Options
sun03
Members Posts: 44
I've only been here a short period of time so I don't know if this has been posted. I've been reading up on Black History(American history) and I've been also browsing online. I found a really interesting episode with Glen Beck speaking about the MANY Black Founding Fathers and Black Heros in early American history. They also spoke about how whites intentionally omit Black contributions out of their textbooks and only display them as "slaves". Here are the links:
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inoWGGeqdmo
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY8o1I3jDUU&feature=related
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SujAcgdDeM4&feature=related
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inoWGGeqdmo
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY8o1I3jDUU&feature=related
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SujAcgdDeM4&feature=related
Comments
-
And that let you know right there^^^^^^^ how ? dont research their history i been knowin that shi. Glen Beck did that ? to keep some heat off of him and after all that racist ass ? he say's..? was givin him props for that and prasising him SMH. now if they would of got off their ass and did some research that would of knew that....
-
No one is praising him. I've known a lot about Black history(American history) and I've always been bothered by the fact that growing up they would always omit it. I don't like Black history being relegated to one month. And even during that month, the achievements typically being highlighted aren't usually that great. There is just so many important accomplishments and achievements.
I posted that video because I found it interesting that they would actually admit to it. Since they don't like taking accountability for anything. I didn't know Beck's background, but if that is why he did it, then that explains everything.
Im going to search to see if there has been a topic on African/Black history being omitted in history books taught in schools. -
One very important "African American" lesson left out of history books that doesnt portray us as the contributor, but is damn important to us learning and understanding why many of uf behave the way we do is the Willie Lynch letter. But that would blow too many peoples minds...idk, that just my personal opinion
-
It shouldnt have taken u to tell me that the letter was fake, but I appreciate the wake up call anyhow.
Furthermore, white textbooks wont tell you that Africans arrived in this land long before the "Pilgrams" came to take ? over. -
phatazzdyme wrote: »Furthermore, white textbooks wont tell you that Africans arrived in this land long before the "Pilgrams" came to take ? over.
1. Pilgrims.
2. The Pilgrims weren't even the first Europeans to arrive here.
3. There is NO EVIDENCE that Africans visited the Americas prior to Colombus. The entire "them olmec heads look like ? " argument has been shredded thoroughly. There's no genetic evidence, there's no forensic evidence, there's no archaeological evidence. It just doesn't seem to have ever happened. -
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »1. Pilgrims.
LOLThe Pilgrims weren't even the first Europeans to arrive here.
True.There is NO EVIDENCE that Africans visited the Americas prior to Colombus. The entire "them olmec heads look like ? " argument has been shredded thoroughly. There's no genetic evidence, there's no forensic evidence, there's no archaeological evidence. It just doesn't seem to have ever happened.
Ha Ha Ha . I remember when I laminated that ass with them Olmec Heads. That is archaeological evidence, son. That and the drawings by the indigenous people of Black people described as Olmec or rubber people. Oh and lets not forget the Mendi script found in Mexico on monuments found in Monte Alban. Mende is a language that has it's origin in West Africa which would blow your forensic evidence out the water. Oh and lets not forget the cotton found in Mexico that is indigenous to African lands. The only way they could have survived is if like the Spanish with oranges and Indians with the spices they were transported in human hands.
This is not even including the pottery, art, cornrows, and tribal scars that were exactly like tribes from West Africa. You probably think those pyramid structures in Meso-America got there by osmosis, huh?
SMH, at white dudes who will go to ridiculous lengths to tell me I don't see what I see.
I'm trying to dig up some footage of the Art bell show where he had those archaeologist admit they discovered an African presence before the Mayans. -
Your source is the Art Bell show?
Like I already said, there is NO EVIDENCE. Everything you're trying to list has either been thoroughly debunked or was simply made up by Afrocentrists who lack scholarly rigor.
But you're a racist cultist, so there's really no arguing with you until you free your mind. -
The complete rebuttal to Ivan Van Sertima's "They Came Before Colombus" theory:
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/vansertima.pdf -
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »Your source is the Art Bell show?
Like I already said, there is NO EVIDENCE. Everything you're trying to list has either been thoroughly debunked or was simply made up by Afrocentrists who lack scholarly rigor.
But you're a racist cultist, so there's really no arguing with you until you free your mind.
LOL. Listen to me Bignose Brizinski, I could post pictures of everything I said from the Mendi script to the tribal scars, and art and who would debunk it? These discoveries were made by Mexican archaeologist. They are not Afrocentric. The only thing debunked was the Mayans were not the progenitors of that civilization.
And uh, you belong to the alpha and omega of racist cults. Your cult is truly your race....that is why you were expelled every where you went.... -
Still viscerally emotional about anything Jewy, I see. You're a racist, bruh. Don't be that way. All the cool kids stopped being racist.
-
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »1. Pilgrims.
2. The Pilgrims weren't even the first Europeans to arrive here.
3. There is NO EVIDENCE that Africans visited the Americas prior to Colombus. The entire "them olmec heads look like ? " argument has been shredded thoroughly. There's no genetic evidence, there's no forensic evidence, there's no archaeological evidence. It just doesn't seem to have ever happened.
You really are a troll and dont know ? ,phatazzdyme is right Africans were here before columbus and the Native Americans -
My sources are peer-reviewed academic journals.
Your sources are youtube videos of cult propaganda.
Woo. Swag. -
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »My sources are peer-reviewed academic journals.
Your sources are youtube videos of cult propaganda.
Woo. Swag.
again you dont know ? and a troll what more evidence you want, so can refute any thing from the videos??? that's what i thought and get off J Sun nuts -
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »The complete rebuttal to Ivan Van Sertima's "They Came Before Colombus" theory:
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/vansertima.pdf
Well first of, Ivan Van Sertima was not the one to say this. You had many Mexican, American, and even European scholars to say this. Ivan Van Sertima came after them and just verified their findings.
You had Jose Melgan, Leo ? ,Constantine Rafinesque and others.
What you think negroes only read Van Sertima and writings by Black authors. Besides that rebuttal is by Mexicans who don't like the fact that Van Sertima said Blacks predated their people. Imagine that white people that don't want to give black people credit. These people invalidate Afrocentrics scholars on the basis of what they perceive as Afrocentric not their method of scholarship. That is ? . If you have issue with Afrocentricity scholarship (and I do) then do it on the basis of their methodology of scholarship, not their frame of reference. How do we know these people are not Eurocentrics?
A forum discussion put on pdf, would not qualify as scholarship Ktulu. Especially if the opposing side isn't given a chance for rebuttal. SMH, at ghetto scholarship. I'm not saying they don't have valid points. but some of the things I read in the first four pages are outright falsehoods and misleading. Believe me, I have critique some of their works, but it is done from a strictly methodology point of view.
If you want an alternative point of refernce, peep the book by Jewish historian Leo ? that details the African Presence in America that predates others.
This is a digital library so you will have to read it like you would any book.
http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000290842 -
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »Still viscerally emotional about anything Jewy, I see. You're a racist, bruh. Don't be that way. All the cool kids stopped being racist.
The Devil you say. I used to stay with a Jewish family in the summer when I was growing up and my lawyer is Jewish, ? is thorough. I would give them my last bagel. I just don't feel the closet racist ones who try to fake the funk.
I just call it like I see it. -
His book is the definitive example of this nonsensical revisionist history. And it's been entirely debunked.Well first of, Ivan Van Sertima was not the one to say this.
Source?You had Jose Melgan,
The composer? Oh you mean Wiener. He's one of Van Sertima's sources and naturally, all of his shoddy scholarship has also been thoroughly debunked.Leo ?
Noteworthy for being a fraud.Constantine Rafinesque
Cool. That's not what I linked to. I gave you a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLE.A forum discussion put on pdf, would not qualify as scholarship Ktulu.
Van Sertima was indeed given the opportunity to comment on that article but he himself chose not to. Instead, he wrote his rebuttal in his own (NON PEER REVIEWED) journal. The guy was a hack.Especially if the opposing side isn't given a chance for rebuttal.
I do not believe that you read a single word. You are personally involved in a racist cult, so you are not going to be honest about this issue.some of the things I read in the first four pages are outright falsehoods and misleading.
Don't pretend you're important enough to have a lawyer, you ? .my lawyer is Jewish -
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »His book is the definitive example of this nonsensical revisionist history. And it's been entirely debunked.
Unless you have a bunch of other articles that contradict Van Sertima's findings, I'd say you're exaggerating here. Nothing in that article "entirely debunks" anything. Sure, it offers some counterpoints and some of those points even have merit. However, that article in no way addresses all the points that Van Sertima addressed in his book. It also doesn't really provide factual proof that compeltely invalidates Van Sertima's theory. At best, the article shows that Van Sertima's theory has some holes in it, but most historical theories do because there are very few cases where the whole truth is known.
I personally don't think the Olmecs were black. I also don't think that Africans had as much influence in the Americas as some people are insinuating. I do think it is possible that Africans made it over here though. After all Thor Heyemdahl successfully recreated the trip in the exact manner that African stories suggest it was made. Plus the preponderance of evidence that Van Sertima has brought suggests its a possibility, even if it's not a guaranteed thing as some suggest.
Also, something being peer reviewed doesn't make it right or the best theory. It just means that recognized individuals have looked at it and believe that the information presented is credible. That's great, but it doesn't automatically mean that that paper is right and Van Sertima is wrong. You don't have to go back too long to find plenty of papers that were peer reviewed and are recognized today to be complete ? . That's the thing about peer reviewing. If those doing the reviewing are of like mind to the author, then it's not unheard of for them to more readily accept the information presented. It's not supposed to go down like that, but humans are human. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »the preponderance of evidence that Van Sertima has brought
This is the problem: THERE IS NO SUCH PREPONDERANCE. -
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »His book is the definitive example of this nonsensical revisionist history. And it's been entirely debunked.
No it is not. And no it hasn't just because you say so.The composer? Oh you mean Wiener. He's one of Van Sertima's sources and naturally, all of his shoddy scholarship has also been thoroughly debunked.
Do you have anyhting past I said so? Of course you don't because you just post the first ? you can find against something and rely on their word. Like when you posted that foolishness about jews being the same genetically as the original hebrews and it was written by jews. Only to have it skewered for it's shoddy scholarship.I gave you a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLE.
And I don't give a ? , white racists have appeared in scientific journals before, so your point is irrelevant. Smart-dumb ? .Van Sertima was indeed given the opportunity to comment on that article but he himself chose not to. Instead, he wrote his rebuttal in his own (NON PEER REVIEWED) journal. The guy was a hack.
I doubt it. Do you have proof of that past someone elses claim. I know how journalist do. They will say call was made but they didn't return call so that means they chose not to participate. GTFOH, with that ? . More than likely they didn't want Van Sertima to show up and call them on their ? . You do know white folks lie, don't you? Peer Review? So what if your peers are liars or racist with axes to grind? ? forbid huh?I do not believe that you read a single word. You are personally involved in a racist cult, so you are not going to be honest about this issue.
Actually, I know you didn't read a single word. You just posted the first thing smoking because that is what you do. I guarantee you know almost nothing about the Olmecs. If you did you would not have bothered to post this ? by these ham and eggers. Mende Script, artifacts, cornrows, tribal scars, Cotton strain indigenous to Africa is are more than enough for any serious scholar to make the connection.
I know that they wrote some ? about Chancellor Williams, John Jackson, and George james that misrepresented their work. I know they provided almost no evidence to disput their claims and all they had to rebut with was "they were angry black dudes, so their scholarship is false". That is not scholarship. That is playing to the cheap seats. Van Seritima, DIop were married to white women! These ? even had the nerve top post a pictures of people supposedly from that region to verify their claims when every body knows Africans have almost every phenotype known to man in many regions. They did the same ? you tried to pull with the Jews are related to the people of the Middle Ease and Africa, etc in that region now as though the migration patterns of people did not change over thousands of years.Don't pretend you're important enough to have a lawyer, you ? .
You don't have to be important to have a lawyer, just smart. Certain things I am not good at, so I leave it to the J-J-J-Jew Unit. -
As usual, you make hollow claims, ad hominem attacks, and get very upset about Jews. But that's the best we can expect from a racist cult member.
The ultimate problem for you revisionist historians is that there is no genetic evidence in support of your nonsense. That's the checkmate. -
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »As usual, you make hollow claims, ad hominem attacks, and get very upset about Jews. But that's the best we can expect from a racist cult member.
The ultimate problem for you revisionist historians is that there is no genetic evidence in support of your nonsense. That's the checkmate.
First you say, no archaeological evidence then that was shown to be false. Then you say no forensic evidence and that proved to be false. Then you say there is no genetic evidence so that equates to checkmate. Ha Ha Ha. Your almost falling off the ledge. You resort to cheap labeling and name calling because you are not on solid ground and you know it.
LOL. Who you think you talking to? There has been no one more revisionist than White people in general and YOUR people in particular. You all have been exposed as the ultimate liars even until this day. You make up historical nonsense to justifying wars, genocide, and usurping peoples land. Yes, you ? . People are not buying into you alls lying, racist notions of history anymore. People have the capability to tell their own story now and that is what is happening. You all are angry because your false account of history and bogus education can not hold us anymore. Black people are way more sophisticated now to fall for that ? you put out.
More and more people are learning the true history of the peoples of the Earth and this is why globally you are becoming personna non grata.
So get the hell on......you and yo mama. -
waterproof wrote: »You really are a troll and dont know ? ,phatazzdyme is right Africans were here before columbus and the Native Americans
Yeah, I've been reading up and Africans were the first Americans. I've also been reading up on the first, original, Black Europeans. Pretty interesting and definitely empowering.
What I don't get is why is there always a white person and other non white people trying to debate me on my history. I know who I am and where I come from. White lies don't work on me. -
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »This is the problem: THERE IS NO SUCH PREPONDERANCE.
The presence of african flora in the New World.
The presence of gold and other metals that almost certainly had to have been smithed in Africa in the New World.
The accounts of Columbus and others who say that the natives made reference to black travelers.
The oral tradition in Africa that gives a blueprint which has been proven to be plausible for traveling to the New World from Africa using the technological means of that time.
The linguistic and symbolic similarities between some of the things found in the New World and things seen in Africa.
Alone none of those things really makes a strong case, but put together they do. That article you provided addressed some of this, but even the things it addressed, it didn't do to the effect of completely invalidating the points. For instance, it talked about the Egyptian cotton in the New World but only addressed it by saying "It had been there before the Africans had supposedly arrived." Unless I missed it, nowhere in the article did the author explain how he came to this conclusion. As a matter of fact, he fell on that a lot, his principle argument was that the times didn't match up. That said, the times are the loosest part of Van Sertima's conjecture. He has evidence that he believes is proof that there was an African presence. Using that evidence he conjectured when Africans might have made the trip. Disputing those dates doesn't automatically invalidate the idea that Africans were in the New World. At best it means that Van Sertima's time tables are wrong. -
lol @ someone in here saying there's no evidence of africans in america before columbus when it's a known fact that the first thing europeans did when they got to the americas was pillage and plunder and ? and brutalize and then at the same time, they destroyed 99% of all the books and artifacts of all the cultures so that they could make up any ? lie that would still be believed by gullible white supremacists to this very day because they created a nifty sounding award to give to the best student who can regurgitate all the ? literally conjured up by these snake tongued devils.
Seriously.... no...
Afrocentric? lol..... if Afrocentric is another word for reality, then sure. -
That wasn't shown to be false. You have never supported your claims here.First you say, no archaeological evidence then that was shown to be false.
Same as above. You haven't proven anything. I posted credible sources and you never have.Then you say no forensic evidence and that proved to be false.
Yes, it does.Then you say there is no genetic evidence so that equates to checkmate.
A dude who had to quit posting and "convalesce" because he was getting sonned on a regular basis.Who you think you talking to?
The Swedes? Oh I almost forgot, you're obsessed with Jews to the point that you think the people who disagree with you online must be part of a vast Jewish conspiracy.There has been no one more revisionist than White people in general and YOUR people in particular.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkoNtMFPxwQ
