Black Contributions/History Omitted from White Textbooks
Options
Comments
-
As was pointed out in the academic debunking of Van Sertima, the flora evidence was never solid.The Lonious Monk wrote: »The presence of african flora in the New World.
Same as above.The presence of gold and other metals that almost certainly had to have been smithed in Africa in the New World.
Native Americans say that people literally turn into ravens and eagles at will.The accounts of Columbus and others who say that the natives made reference to black travelers.
Heyerdal proved that it was conceivably possible but not that it ever happened. Afrocentrists are asking us to believe that Africans came to the new world en masse, took over the native culture, built pyramids which were dissimilar to anything in the old world, and then disappeared without a trace.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 shoddy Nation of Islam pseudo-scholarship as it regards linguistics amounts to nothing more than saying "These words are similar to me, so they MUST be directly related." Fact is, there is no relation between Native American languages and African languages.The linguistic and symbolic similarities between some of the things found in the New World and things seen in Africa. -
idk about the whole olmec and african ancestry.
remember Latino DNA is closes to Asian DNA, not african. -
HipHopFiend91 wrote: »idk about the whole olmec and african ancestry.
remember Latino DNA is closes to Asian DNA, not african.
Well considering that they trace Asian Dna back to East Africa I guess that would be a link.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC21714/
And remember they have have surmised that Not only Black Africans came over here but Black Continental Asians joined them. -
said:As was pointed out in the academic debunking of Van Sertima, the flora evidence was never solid.
Not true. The strains of cotton found in Mexico were indigenous to Africa. Particularly Egypt.Native Americans say that people literally turn into ravens and eagles at will
This is similar to Egyptian culture. It is not that they originally believed that people turned into animals, they used these stories as symbolism. It was codified language and stories
that Europeans couldn't understand. it wasn't until the intermingling with Europeans and disruption of their cultural and separating the children from the parents that these stories took on a literal meaning. You claim to work on a reservation miseducating Indian children, you should know this.Heyerdal proved that it was conceivably possible but not that it ever happened
Foh, with this self contradicting statement. A possibility is not proof, hence the term possibility.Afrocentrists are asking us to believe that Africans came to the new world en masse, took over the native culture, built pyramids which were dissimilar to anything in the old world, and then disappeared without a trace.
No they are not. This is what racist, Eurocentric scholars say they are saying. This is classic Eurocentric lying ass attribution. They make up something that you never said. Then attack you on something you never said. Then "debunk" the lie they made up. Afrocentrics on the Olmec question are saying Africans(and Asians along with them) came over and predated so-called native culture. They are saying when the Continental Asians came over here over the Bering straits, they found the Olmecs here, they learned from them and through war, dying off, and migration they disappeared albeit with plenty of traces, i.e. Statues, Plants, Writings, and Art work.
And a point of significance, that Eurocentric diablos like to conveniently leave out. Van Sertima and others who are not Afrocentric never make the claim that Africans came over here exclusively by themselves. They highlight that Asians, particularly the Black ones migrated over here, also. They conveniently leave that out.The shoddy Nation of Islam pseudo-scholarship as it regards linguistics amounts to nothing more than saying "These words are similar to me, so they MUST be directly related." Fact is, there is no relation between Native American languages and African languages.
First of all, the discovery was made by Mexican archeologists and a couple of Europeans some of which were your people.
Mende script is a WRITTEN language that is found in West Africa. It is not exclusively a verbally linguistic medium. These writings are composed of symbols that are not exclusively phonetic but they tell stories so in some instances there are no words to sound similar. They are not alphanumeric, ? . No this script is not Native American language because the script is Western African.
They deciphered the writings on the back of the Olmec statues with the help of the Mendi Tribe of Africa. Explain that?
http://2012.caliwali.com/science.htm -
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »That wasn't shown to be false. You have never supported your claims here.
for the umpteenth time. Here is archaeological evidence
JAY-Z
Styles P
KRS One
Edward James OlmosYou haven't proven anything. I posted credible sources and you never have.
Yes. I have. Credible to you is not the standard of credibility. I want truth.A dude who had to quit posting and "convalesce" because he was getting sonned on a regular basis.
I know your internet life is important to you. But they sun has never set on the day that you ever sonned me.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.
Typical neurotic, overly sensitive behavior of your people. You think every cry and hew be against you. Don't get mad because I made you renounce your heritage a la TXMade.
You are a lot like black people in a lot of ways. Except we got big lips and thingys and you got big noses. -
Ktulu is a troll, but even so his senile rebuttals do provide a base for good discourse.
-
Well considering that they trace Asian Dna back to East Africa I guess that would be a link.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC21714/
And remember they have have surmised that Not only Black Africans came over here but Black Continental Asians joined them.
i wouldn't doubt it, just saying.
because u see how some latinos look asian mainly the salvodoreans,mexicans,guatamaleans,hondurans.
with a doubt there's black ancestry in cuban,dominican, and rican. -
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
and anything good ever done by whites is pretty much erased from the consciousness of black bigots [which is SOME blacks] -
Nail in the coffin....
Lucy....Say Hello to Lucia
This is Lucia, a 20 year old African woman who died in South America over 11,000 years ago.
We know that Lucia was a member of the Olmec civilization. Her skull matches the African ? features of the Olmec heads. But what else do we know about Lucia, and what is being heavily debated about her skulls, head and related artifacts exhibited in Brazil's National Museum.
RIO DE JANEIRO— A human skull that is prominently displayed at the National Museum here has been attracting crowds and controversy in equal measure since it was first unveiled early this month. After two decades in storage, the fossilized cranium has now been identified by Brazilian scientists as the oldest human remains ever recovered in the Western Hemisphere. The skull is that of a young woman, nicknamed Luzia, who is believed to have roamed the savannah of south-central Brazil some 11,500 years ago.
Even more startling, a reconstruction of her cranium undertaken in Britain this year indicates that her features appear to be Negroid rather than Mongoloid, suggesting that the Western Hemisphere may have initially been settled not only earlier than thought, but by a people distinct from the ancestors of today's North and South American Indians. ''
Life-like head created from Lucia's skull
We can no longer say that the first colonizers of the Americas came from the north of Asia, as previous models have proposed,'' said Dr. Walter Neves, an anthropologist at the University of Sao Paulo, who made the initial discovery along with an Argentine colleague, Hector Pucciarelli. ''This skeleton is nearly 2,000 years older than any skeleton ever found in the Americas, and it does not look like those of Amerindians or North Asians.'' If the date is confirmed, the find could transform thinking about the peopling of the Americas. It may be some time before that work is completed, but meanwhile, archeologists here and abroad say the find is potentially very important.
Until Luzia, named as a playful homage to Lucy, the 3.2-million-year-old human ancestor found in Africa, the oldest known human remains recovered in the Western Hemisphere were those of a woman found in Buhl, Idaho, and repatriated to the Shoshone tribe in 1991. Radiocarbon dating tests have established the age of that skeleton as a bit more than 10,000 years old. Luzia's discovery at a location in the state of Minas Gerais called Lapa Vermelha is consistent, however, with recent findings made at the celebrated Monte Verde site in southern Chile. There, evidence of human habitation as early as 12,500 years ago, including stone tools and a footprint, has been uncovered, though no human remains have yet been found. The finds, along with recent discoveries in North America like those of the so-called Kennewick Man and Spirit Cave Man, are forcing a reassessment of long-established theories as to the settling of the Americas. Based on such evidence, Dr. Neves suggests that Luzia belonged to a nomadic people who began arriving in the New World as early as 15,000 years ago.
Quoted from Walter Neves in AAAS:
"A discussion of my long-term studies about the morphology of the first Americans includes comments from two North American colleagues to which I wish to respond.
Tom Dillehay, from the University of Kentucky, Lexington, says in the article that the results I obtained from Luzia (a member of the Olmecs of ancient Americas), which I suppose is the oldest human skeleton found in the Americas (dating from 11,000 to 11,500 million years ago), are "very preliminary," and that the archaeological evidence associated with the African-looking skull "is no different from what you see at sites with nonanomalous skeletons." And Leslie Freeman, from the University of Chicago, refers to "sparse skeletal evidence." Luzia, however, is just one of many South American Paleo-Indian skulls I have been investigating since the end of the 1980s. And all studies preceding and subsequent to the analysis of Luzia have generated the same result: The first South Americans have a marked morphological affinity with present-day Africans and Australians, showing no resemblance to present Asian Mongoloids or American Indians.
My studies with several South and North American collaborators have involved almost 15 specimens dated between 8500 and 11,500 thousand years ago from places as different as Central Brazil, Colombia, and Tierra del Fuego (Chile). Our analyses have also included more than 30 putative ancient South American specimens, some of them showing a high degree of fossilization. Different multivariate statistic tools have been used in these studies with complete convergent results.
Walter Neves
Laboratório de Estudos Evolutivos Humanos,
Departamento de Biologia,
Instituto de Biociências,
Universidade de São Paulo,
Oh, for you journal ass ?
Proceedings from the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/4152613
This is only the first page, but the first three paragraphs basically tell the story, the next five are full of process and findings. You have to have an account. -
So far, your sources are a 2012 conspiracy theory website and one article about one skull that I can't find a copy of anyplace that isn't a web forum for black conspiracy theorists like yourself.
And you're stooping as low as the Black Hebrew Israelite guys in just looking at photos of monuments and saying "Well these are clearly Negroid features" even after that flimsy claim has already been thoroughly debunked by proving that those ? features are present in the Native MesoAmerican population.
I've sonned you so many times I must have a grandson by now. -
John Prewett wrote: »and anything good ever done by whites is pretty much erased from the consciousness of black bigots [which is SOME blacks]
Like?............ -
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »So far, your sources are a 2012 conspiracy theory website and one article about one skull that I can't find a copy of anyplace that isn't a web forum for black conspiracy theorists like yourself.
And you're stooping as low as the Black Hebrew Israelite guys in just looking at photos of monuments and saying "Well these are clearly Negroid features" even after that flimsy claim has already been thoroughly debunked by proving that those ? features are present in the Native MesoAmerican population.
.
Dude, I posted the link to the journal submitted by the Brazilian and British anthropologists to the National Academy of Sciences. Their findings say that Lucy was African. These are not conspiracy theorists, nor Afrocentrics with an ax to grind. Basically, you are putting your finger in your ear and saying lalalalalalalalalalalala. LOLOLOLOL
I gave you Archeological evidence, professional journal documentation from non Afrocentric sources by men who have been doing this for decades only to say there findings have been consistently the same for decades. Those 70 plus fossils that have been carbon dated are from people who show affinity to Africans and Aborigine Austrailians and no resemblance to Asian and Indians. And you know more than credentialed leading experts in the field who have been doing this work for 30 plus years.
I think this deserves a humongous....
? PLEASE!
Basically, you just got spanked. -
My bad. So you did post ONE genuine article, but it doesn't actually support your racist position. I don't even have to mention that you disregard cranial morphology any time it's used for any purpose besides your revisionist agenda. This is why the genetic evidence (or lack thereof) is vital. Business as usual: And Step lying and being selective with evidence.
-
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »My bad. So you did post ONE genuine article, but it doesn't actually support your racist position. I don't even have to mention that you disregard cranial morphology any time it's used for any purpose besides your revisionist agenda. This is why the genetic evidence (or lack thereof) is vital. Business as usual: And Step lying and being selective with evidence.
Shut up, KTULU. You don't know ? just like the rest of us. Stop fronting. You're just more pretentious with your ignorant ? . You have to research like every body else. Genetic evidence is vital to you because your other points got Swiss cheesed up. And once the last piece of the puzzle is connected you will come up with some more obstacles.
You are the racist. You turn your eye from anything that doesn't validate your false sense of white superiority. I know you duke. I grew up with you.
Your revison of non white history and even your own started with your interaction and destruction of Egyptian Civilization. It is paramount to you maintaining your facade of white supremacy, so you fight to invalidate anything that makes you look less than pioneering and wonderful. That is that selfish, sociopathic, reprobate mind that causes you to be so destructive with anyone who doesn't look like you.
It's cool though... I aint mad or nuffin...
Ok you went from Archaelogical lay-up. Get that ? out of here. Then you tried to play forensic card. Sorry try again. Then you try to play the credible academic source card. Uh Uh! -
I aint mad
The entire rest of your post proves otherwise. You must have been abused by that Jewish family you lived with because you seem obsessed with regenerating your ego by fighting forum battles with people you imagine to be part of the vast Jewish conspiracy to re-enslave black folk or whatever it is Louis is preaching this week. Beam up to the mothership, bruh. There's clearly nothing for you here. Maybe you need more time to "convalesce." -
African Origins of Maths Dr Ron Eglash
-
Originally Posted by John Prewett; and anything good ever done by whites
is pretty much erased from the consciousness of black bigots [which is SOME blacks]
======================================================Like?........... .
I rest my case -
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »You must have been abused by that Jewish family you lived with because you seem obsessed with regenerating your ego by fighting forum battles with people you imagine to be part of the vast Jewish conspiracy to re-enslave black folk or whatever it is Louis is preaching this week. Beam up to the mothership, bruh. There's clearly nothing for you here. Maybe you need more time to "convalesce."
I guess. Whatever makes you feel good. You keep bringing up Jewish Conspiracy not me. A guilty conscious needs no accuser, so...... you know. You keep repeating it with the hope of inoculating some, particularly for those who don't know yet.
Actually, the family I stayed with for a few summers was mad cool. They treated me well. And they taught me a lot. They taught me to store gold and they taught me how to rock a yarmulke. Food was ? though. You all need to step your culinary game up. They was good people.
Now if you want a psychological profile, peep this, it is obvious you grew up admiring black people from a distance after being rejected as the "strange kid" by your own. Only to have Black people reject you for being a weirdo and you have been on the warpath ever since. Ol Anakin Skywalker ass ? ... -
John Prewett wrote: »Originally Posted by John Prewett; and anything good ever done by whites
is pretty much erased from the consciousness of black bigots [which is SOME blacks]
======================================================
I rest my case
And I rest mine -
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »As was pointed out in the academic debunking of Van Sertima, the flora evidence was never solid.
Same as above.
You keep saying that it was debunked, but the article you gave didn't debunk anything. It made a suggestion of another possibility, but didn't really offer any strong evidence for that. You say it was never solid, based on what?Native Americans say that people literally turn into ravens and eagles at will.
So because the Natives had their religious beliefs, their accounts of black men in their lands is false? Come on man, that's just a terrible argument you're making there.Heyerdal proved that it was conceivably possible but not that it ever happened. Afrocentrists are asking us to believe that Africans came to the new world en masse, took over the native culture, built pyramids which were dissimilar to anything in the old world, and then disappeared without a trace.
Like I said, I don't believe everything Afrocentrists say. I just believe it's possible and even probable that Africans made the trip. Heyerdahl's work supports that. And the "disappeared without a trace" only applies if you throw out potential evidence without prejudice which there is no reason to do.The shoddy Nation of Islam pseudo-scholarship as it regards linguistics amounts to nothing more than saying "These words are similar to me, so they MUST be directly related." Fact is, there is no relation between Native American languages and African languages.
So you attack the scholar rather than the concept. That's usually the tactic of a person that can't make an effective argument. -
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.
Exactly! You are telling it like it is. You are 100 percent right! -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »You keep saying that it was debunked, but the article you gave didn't debunk anything.
Well that's flatly false.
You're missing the very simple point.So because the Natives had their religious beliefs, their accounts of black men in their lands is false?
No, I'm attacking the scholarship.So you attack the scholar rather than the concept.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXRvwk12atw
