Michel Montvert
-
Posts
112 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Michel Montvert
-
-
19 hours ago, Delano said:
If you fell through time you would not be found, until you fell back.Since you don't share our timeline. Or our immediate space and time.
It isn't spaced out it's timed out or out of time.
I think time travel may be possible, except you could only travel to various points in your own life. But you would the memories and ideas of that time. So we could be time travelling often yet not be able to retain our non physical contents.
Vedic notions of cycles of time are interesting. And things happen in cycles, so what time is it? Shiva is portrayed with eyes half closed, in the act of "blinking worlds in and out of existence."
I can give myself a headache thinking about the present... it doesn't exist!!! See, here it is, right now, oh whoops. now it's the past. Here comes more "present", but now it's past as soon as I look at it. The old hippy injunction to "Be Here Now" is not as easy to fulfill as it might seem. It's like electrons, you can identify their mass, and you can indicate a probability of where they are, but you can't locate and measure them at the same time. When I think about that I start to think that nothing exists at all.
Sorry I have no answers, only existential musings.
-
Trump went to N. Korea because he loves dictators. He praised Kim. He praised Duterte. He praised Erdogan. He praised Putin. He said he wished USA generals were more like Nazi generals.
Trump is a TRAITOR, nothing less.
Who has all those missing classified documents? I'm betting they are now in either Riyadh or Moscow.
TREASON!!!
-
29 minutes ago, Chevdove said:
@Michel Montvert Oh! Where's your evidence to prove against my evidence!? I provided reference from WHITE people!
Now you are trying to interject that I don't respect White people for being positive and worthy scholars. LOL.
SEE you supremacist go again--LOL! inserting comments to suggest that some else has said something that they really did not say.
I did NOT use the word GENOCIDE, but previously you tried to relay that. I carefully used the word MASSACRE! LOL.
I could have used the phrase genocidal attempt, but my word 'massacre' was sufficient to relay the point that the Europeans did wipe out the Orginal Mayans--AFRICANS.
You can babble on about 'me saying that primitive hominids not having YDNA'-- THERE YOU GO AGAIN, BEING A SUPREMACIST.
I repeatedly responded to you in that I agree that Neanderthals had to have YDNA, because they did reproduce!!!
However, they could NOT produce ANY VIABLE OFFSPRING THAT WAS MALE. The only offspring they could reproduce was either INTERSEXED or FEMALE.
PERIOD!!! Neanderthals came from DENISOVANS and these 'black' hominids were completely extinct while the Neanderthals existed for a long time afterwards.
MY REFERENCE--One would be the Smithsonian!!! GO CHECK IT OUT!
LOL!
That's bullshit
I hope to present research about the White movement in ancient times.
LOL! Okay, I call a truce on this because I don't agree with the NOI teaching. That Pioneer1. He puts out a lot of that belief, not me.
Again, I provided you references and you've not address any of it.
You speak against the late Ivan Van Sertima, and I have given you other references to support him.
the 500 Nations documentary-Kevin Cosner
The Son of the Morning Star [?] book by a Native American
etc.
LOL! I agree with you on this one.
That, imo is racist garbage.
There is no "supremacism" in anything I said. Apparently if I disagree with you that makes me a supremacist. For a white supremacist I must be a huge failure, because I was married to a Jew and 2 Mexicans. I don't think the Klan would approve. You don't know me, but I am minimally even connected to whites at all. The white people here in Virginia I do not see as my people, I do not really know how to talk to them. Anyway. my comments here have been in defense of American Indians. not whites.
No, you are confused about Y-DNA. Neandertals produced males just fine. The problem was when they interbred with sapiens. the male offspring usually did not survive due to genetic incompatibility. That is to what you refer, I'm sure. Neandertals and sapiens split 900k years ago and so there are genetic problems with their interbreeding. Neandertals and Denisovans were on that same line which split from sapiens. They then split subsequently. More accurately. probably, would be to say that they both evolved from Homo antecessor. The sapiens line at that time was Homo bodoensis (formerly called heidelbergensis), as sapiens didn't evolve until 300k yrs ago, from what we now know.
What evidence do you have for white racism in ancient times? I've never seen it. The Greeks, for example, called nearly all non-Greeks "barbarians", whether they were black, white or other. I'm sure the Greeks had a higher opinion of black Egyptians than they did of white Celts. And I've seen no evidence that the Romans gave a damn about skin color. There were blacks in the Legions. and in fact one town in England was discovered to have African DNA in nearly everyone in the town, due to retired Legionnaires who'd settled there and been absorbed by the Britons.
Racism is unnatural, and to think that whites somehow are inherently racist is nonsense. Racism as we know it was developed to rationalize the abuse of non-Europeans who were just being "discovered". They had no theories of black inferiority when black Moors were oppressing them and enslaving whites. They developed those theories to justify THEIR oppression against Africans (and others).
Ok let's not flame war. Ultimately we're on the same side, just in being anti-racist if nothing else.
The early Olmecs originated adjacent to the Maya, in Soconusco. The Mayan calendar was developed in that time. Olmec culture can be easily traced with continuity from the Gulf Coast back to Soconusco.
Good point this guy makes about Afrocentrism and Eurocentrism. But the salient point: NO genetic evidence of any but Native Americans has been found in America, specifically in the Olmec region.
-
1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:
Lol.....
Milli Vanilli had some catchy tunes back in the day!
I used to walk around singing "Blame it On The Rain"
"Blame it on the raaaaiin...yeah...yeaaaaah".....LOL
"Girl you know it's true....oooo.....ooo....oooo....I love yooouuuu"
Man, come on. I think they gave MV too hard of a time.
Just because they caught them lip syncing or something.
Most artists do that today.
Arsenio Hall used to CLOWN on them all the time, lol.
A lot of today's music is sung through voice modifiers, so that the singer often sounds like a computer.
Milli Vanilli were trivial, I was unable to give a damn one way or the other. But then I'm from the 60s and so spoiled with GREAT music!
I saw the TAMI concert in 1964, in Santa Monica. The Rolling Stones. Chuck Berry... but the most amazing act was James Brown. I'd never heard of him yet. OMG watch James Brown TAMI on Youtube. Poor Mick Jagger trying to seem exciting after that... Yeah, Milli Vanilli is a big yawn.
-
44 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:
No.
You give me too much credit.....lol.
I'm very familiar with Nkrumah but not with that particular book.
However to me it just seems like common sense to discard the former methods your enemy was using to control you and come up with a new plan.
Most Asian countries also adopted or kept similar structures to the ones the Europeans left them but seem to have modified them more to fit their contemporary needs than the African nations did.Yes... and also the Asian countries were not set up to fail as extensively as were the African ones. The Europeans had far less effect on Korea, China, Japan. etc.
Nkrumah's book pissed off the British. He exposed how they'd rigged Ghana to fail, to remain dependent. to continue to supply cheap labor and raw materials. Another good book on this is "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa" by Walter Rodney.
Really the Eurocolonialists SCREWED Africa far more than they did Asian nations. I mean you can't remove millions of slaves without severe detrimental effects, not to mention the way Europeans inserted themselves even into tribal political structures to control the people. Countries like Malaysia with a lot of rubber plantations experienced some of that, but still not at African levels.
I can blame corrupt Africans for their misdeeds, but really Africans are no more stupid or gullible than anyone else... they've just been oppressed a lot harder. That's a sad fact. There are currently a LOT of clever young Africans devising solutions for their problems. How nice if such activity could prevail rather than the continuation of the "scramble for Africa", now with China involved.
-
18 minutes ago, Chevdove said:
You completely skip over the research that I presented and come into a Black community and push your supremacist beliefs about why you feel there were no Africans in ancient America. But hey, people like you can come into any black community because we have been suppressed and feel that we need you to tell us who we are.
You are intitled to tell blacks that all of us came over here on the slave ship after Columbus.
But No, the Olmec stones alone does not prove African presence, and I've said that. I've seen it debunked by natives today that look just like those stone heads and they are definitely not African. In the scholarly world, we need to present references that are valid. I've done that.
And, I've seen the evidence of the original Olmecs and Mayan, in that they were indeed African, your kind of supremacist want us to believe in your lies.
I've provided many resoources to show that the ancient Americans indeed included many NATIVES that were African.
There can be no native Indians without the presence of African males.
And, I will take it a little farther as I hope to share more research on genetics:
After the 3rd and 4th generations of ancient people in the attempt to select traits by inbreeding to become White,
the presence of intersexed births will greatly multiply!!! -- and much more.
Therefore, history keeps repeating itself, in that these kinds of Color Supremacist people will select traits and mate to weed out African traits but keep the desired traits that NEANDERTHALS did not have but when the bad births start to show up, OH NO!!! Then always start migrating and looking for Negroes to infiltrate and reach back and try and mate with any NEGRO THEY CAN FIND--
LOL
to try and fix the bad births, intersexed births, NEANDERTHAL HYBRIDS, retarded births, etc. as a result of trying to breed out Negro blood.
History is going to keep repeating itself, because God knows what he did when he created the African man and woman! God is laughing. He does have a sense of humor.
LOL
So, again, without the presence of Black African males, ALL OF ANCIENT AMERICA WOULD BE INTERSEXED because
the first anatomical straight YDNA individual was AFrican male and from him came ALL OF THE MODERN HUMANS of today.
That is why today, there is a big push for bi-racial unions, and movements to get male births and stop the high rate of female births amongst Europeans.
Ok. you've gone over the edge... I am not pushing any "supremacist beliefs". That is offensive and I deserve an apology for that comment. Oh you say you don't reject a scientist for being white, but then assert that being a member of a "group" which is the oppressor, therefore the scientist's thinking is skewed. Being white affects your thinking? Not if you're rational. Science is not tied to "race", a scientifically invalid concept in any case! My scientific viewpoint on Olmecs, Maya, etc., is based on evidence. not some racial ideology which I had rejected by age nine.
This business about "intersexed" is utterly divorced from science. Humans BEFORE that Y-DNA African Adam still had Y-DNA, we just haven't deciphered it yet. That African male was NOT the first to have Y-DNA! Please, if you studied biology why don't you know this? And have you not noticed that other mammals have gender. male and female, just as we do? The common ancestor of chimps and humans had Y-DNA! The males did, I mean.
NOBODY in prehistoric times cared about "being white". nor was there ever any breeding to attempt to become whiter! Humans interbred with other Homo species. We have evidence for this in Africa as well. W-Central Africans have up to 6% non-sapiens DNA. Melanesians are 6% or more Denisovan. All Eurasians are 2-4% Neandertal, and there is Neandertal DNA among Africans also. You seem to think that prehistoric Eurasians thought like Kluxers or Nazis. They did not.
Most are not aware that long before the OOA migration, an earlier migration of Africans into the Mideast had occurred, but had resulted in all those sapiens being absorbed by the Neandertals, so that the Neandertals the OOA people met were already part sapiens. But it was from the OOA people that Eurasians descend, overwhelmingly. Eurasians are all descendants of northeast Africans, those with mtDNA L3.
You really think that racism was a factor in all this? Racism as we know it was not created until the "Age of Exploration", some 500 years ago! You speak as if Upper Palaeolithic hunters were practicing eugenics to make themselves whiter! If that were true, why did nearly all peoples back then easily mix with whomever they encountered? How did all that E1b1b get into the Eurasian Neolithic ancestry? That's an African marker.
Some of what you say sounds like NOI teaching. You ought to know that their info is 100% bullcrap. Are you aware that the majority of European ancestry did NOT emerge from the Caucasus? The NOI thinks that it all did. The caves of the Caucasus and all that nonsense. Racist garbage. The Indoeuropeans were from the steppes. There aren't many caves there...
-
On 8/27/2022 at 12:07 AM, Delano said:
What is the goal or purpose of structural racism?
The original intent was to keep the working class from developing solidarity, by separating "white" from "black". Also, this separation facilitated the maintenance of the "blacks" in slavery, which gets to the ultimate purpose, to maintain an easily-exploitable pool of cheap labor. This whole system ends up keeping the white working class down as well, but it isn't designed and maintained by the working class, but by the whites in power. The black working class and the white working class both are thereby duped and exploited.
I make this argument not to suggest that whites have it just as bad as blacks, which they generally do not, but to advocate for SOLIDARITY which would cut through the con game.
-
9 hours ago, Delano said:
Moments in time are like buses.
Time markers tell you the destination of the moment in time. Based on your birthdate and the present time.
Does time flow smoothly, or is it incremental? I'm curious what you think about this, since you seem to think about time a lot.
I had some strange visions as a child when I'd fear that I was going to fall between the intervals of time and be lost in a timeless universe. Or would I have been found?
Sorry this sounds spaced out, but it happened years before I'd taken any of the controlled substances of the 60s.
-
17 hours ago, daniellegfny said:
Let’s look
at what Uncle Joe didn’t talk about.
NONE of that is due to Biden! As for FBI and DOJ corruption, it is non-existent. If it's corruption you want, take a look at how many Trumpolini associates have been indicted. And how many Obama-Biden associates? None that I know of.
This country is rotten and continues to rot. The rot was caused by Reaganomics. No doubt you voted for it. Stop posting nonsensical white-right propaganda and spend some time before a mirror.
16 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:Coggins
Oooooh.....
So BIDEN is a "White man" who speaks with a forked tongue but Trump isn't??????When Trump was rallying his crowd to beat up Black people and encouraging cops to smash people's heads agaist the squad car, HE wasn't a "bad White man".
Even when he called Black nations "shit hole" countries...that was ok.
But when Biden says something contradictory then ALL OF A SUDDEN he's a forked tongued no good so-n-so?
First you were calling for the abolishment of the FBI....
NOW you're calling the White man fork tongued, like you're Geronimo resurrected....lol.Man....you right-wing "conservative" Negroes are something else...lol
If it's any consolation, there are far more white ones and they're INSANE! Good job putting "conservative" in quotes. Goldwater, the Bushes, the Cheneys... those are conservatives. These Trumpoids are populist fascists. I've lived under a fascist government and know what it smells like, and they reek of it.
-
On 9/2/2022 at 8:26 PM, daniellegfny said:
Welfare is the breeding ground for crime. The support systems I am talking about would focus on the care of unwanted babies.
Then you would support demosocialist policies as those in the other developed nations. where there IS childcare available, job security, where having a baby doesn't condemn you to poverty. Canada, France, Germany, UK, Australia, Israel, etc.... all superior nations to the USA, which steadily declines as long as Republicans and sycophant Republican-Lite Democrats are in power.
-
On 8/27/2022 at 9:20 PM, daniellegfny said:
You invoke Reagan when the issue isn’t a political one.
It is eminently political. Politics created the situation where having a black father in the home was negatively sanctioned. Politics created the crappy economic environment for the working class---Reaganomics. That same murdering devil Reagan encouraged white racists to come back into the mainstream, the results of which we're reaping now.
All those white supremacist terrorist types are voting just as you do... that is what YOU need to examine.
-
16 hours ago, Delano said:
Time will tell
2024 is interesting... the date of the next Presidential election. The GOP will lose the election, and then...
A friend of mine who hates Trump but is a gun aficionado and hangs out with Republicans at the gun shop was talking about their intention to rise up. Around here there is a high % of blacks relative to the avg. in Virginia, and a bunch of hippies at a yoga center founded by Satchidananda. I asked him, so what are these rednecks planning to do, rise up and shoot whom? The Yogaville hippies and the blacks? He simply said, "Yeah, probably. And Democrats."
-
44 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:
richardmurray
Facts.
I've said that what the NIgerian government should do, and infact most African nations should do this is REPLACE most of their current governments which were actually formed and structure by their former and current European colonialists with NEW governments based on a more African and natural system of governing.
European governments are based on the European mindset.
It works for THEM because it's based on THEIR thinking, how their minds are structured.
It doesn't work for our people and leads to a host or problems trying to maintain and live under such a foreign system of rule.
-What the hell is WRONG with these niggas????
Same with most of the Caribbean nations.
They need to replace their current governments with a more natural form instead of those formed by their European colonialists.
Some have made the observation that what's worse than living under a White system of government formed and operated by White folks....is living under a White system of government that Black folks took over and is now trying to run!
I presume you're familiar with "Neocolonialism" by Kwame Nkrumah, which makes the point you're making about the colonizers setting up "independent" African nations to remain dependent on the Europeans.I take back my comment that this is "trivial" compare to oil revenue. I see what y'all are saying, it is indeed meaningful. I still wish the Nigerian govt would deal with the oil problem. They can work on cultural matters, but what about the MONEY and the pollution, the devastation of communities in the oil areas?
Of course we see what happens when a nation nationalizes its oil. Venezuela tried it and the USA set about dirty-tricking their economy. Mexico got away with it... PEMEX!
-
14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:
Michel Montvert
Van Sertima provided no references to his "facts", his work was not peer reviewed. and so it is categorized as "pop alternative history/anthropology" and based on no evidence.
I've read much of Van Sertima's work and he's provided a wealth of evidence to back up his claims.
It's just not accepted by many if not most White scientists.Denial of evidence shouldn't be confused with REFUTING evidence.
Simply calling it ridiculous or a joke doesn't automatically negate the evidence that's presented or make it false.
But I have listened to such as David Imhotep, Runuoko Rashidi, Clyde Winters, etc., and can easily debunk their "everyone was once really black" claims.
Well I actually agree with you that everyone WASN'T once Black.
However I haven't heard ANY of those scholars say that.
Not that they haven't...I just haven't heard them say it.
And we can easily find Native people in Veracruz and Tabasco who look exactly like those Olmec stone heads.That's because if they are in Veracruz they likely are NOT 100% Native American but have African ancestry and in many cases are racially African themselves!
"Black communities are mostly found in Veracruz — where the Spanish disembarked enslaved people from Africa — and the coast of Oaxaca and Guerrero, where Afro-Indigenous traditions from colonial times endure,"Being Black in Mexico: How this country is changing its views (axios.com)
It shouldn't be hard to find people who LOOK LIKE Black people when you go to a community OF Black people....lol.
Those stone heads are clearly African in phenotype.
There is no getting around this.
100% Native Americans of Beringian origin. You may have heard of Luzia and the Lagoa Santa fossils. They also were analyzed and are 100% Native American.I haven't heard of them and can't deny or affirm this one way or another.
Among my own Appalachian people there are a lot of stories about the "Indians" in our ancestry. Very often these are tales without any substantiation. My family's DNA was analyzed and was pure European. That doesn't mean there isn't an Indian in the woodpile, necessarily, but it does mean that family histories are often invented.
It may not be true and then again it actually may be true but they were simply unable to prove it.
Lack of proof doesn't necessarily mean it isn't so.A similar invention is heard often from African-Americans who deny they're part white, and claim to be part Indian, yet DNA analysis shows them to be mixed of African and European usually with no Native component at all. I understand why people would like to deny white ancestry, ok, but facts are facts.
You have a point here.
I recently found out that one of the ancestors in my family who was rumored to be Native America turned out to actually be Mulatta but had to conceal this fact for some reason.
However it should be noted that many if not most AfroAmericans will proudly give you the run down of their White ancestry as quickly as their Indian ancestry.
Many AfroAmericans are proud to have White blood in them, or any other non-Black blood in them to be honest.
There are many Youtube videos, notably by a guy named de Montellano, which debunk all of this easily. If you look at the Native people of that area, they look just like those stone heads. Keep in mind the features are exaggerated... nobody actually looks like that.You seem to be contradicting yourself insisting that the Natives of that region (who likely have much African ancestry) look JUST like those stone heads...only to turn around and claim "nobody" really looks like that...lol.
But for the record, plenty of Africans actually look like that, lol.
This is another case of people seeing Native faces and imagining they see someone else. Like Mayans... they are not much mixed really. In the Highlands they look quite like unmixed Natives.
It doesn't take a lot of imagination to guess what race someone is if the statue of them has thick lips and a short broad nose.
Infact, it would take a heck of an imagination to IMAGINE them being other than Black.
Notice that those claiming African Olmecs mix up the dates of the imaginary visitors. They were Egyptians. they were Mande in Medieval times, and so on. None of it matches, even in the work of the same author.
Could it be that BOTH time periods were correct?
Along with multiple other time periods for Blacks visiting the Americas from Africa that have yet to be discovered (or admitted to) by mainstream history?
A handful of Norse settled briefly in Labrador, and left plenty of remains by which they can easily be identified. WHERE is such evidence for Africans here?
Did the Norse leave statues of themselves?
I don't recall any pre-Columbian statues of White men being found along the coasts in any part of the Americas.
Van Sertima never shows us ONE bit of real evidence of any of those things here in America.
What do you mean by "real evidence"?
Evidence is evidence.
Fact that support an assertion.
Either it's real or it's not.
And if it's not real...it's not evidence.
Nor does anyone else. And would not they have returned to Africa? Most claim that they did, that they were trading back and forth. And so I'd have to ask for some evidence of American crops in Africa, as well! Or American Indians. Almost immediately the Spanish were taking Native Americans to Spain. Would not the Africans have done the same?No.
Because unlike the Europeans...the Africans didn't go there to exploit or DISPLACE people.However in response to your question how do we know that some Native Americans DIDN'T make a voyage back with them to Africa?
What I find problematic about this is that you seem to think that if you can put the adjective "Caucasian" before "scientist" that invalidates the scientist!No, them being Caucasian doesn't necessarily invalidates them or their work. But it DOES put things in their proper perspective when you realize that those scientists belong to a group who have a long and documented history of deception, fabrication, and suppression of truth and history.
If the thread of racism runs through any part of this society that White people collectively can be found in...then one would have to be NAIVE to believe that it wouldn't be found in the sciences of medicine, academia, archeology, astronomy, ect...if they too are controlled and influenced by White people.
So you are then rejecting the scientific method altogether?No.
Facts, evidence, the hypothetical-deductive method... these things are an expression of logic which is independent of the ancestral identity of the scientist doing the work!
....or atleast they SHOULD be.
And if you are going to make statements about peoples' ancestries, you have to have evidence. And you have to use the labels correctly. Dravidian speakers. for example, were NOT the first people in India.
I don't mind being corrected, however is this FACT or THEORY?
Is there a hieroglyph or timeline found on an ancient document or wall declaring that there were people there before the Dravidians???
The are very likely the creators of the Harappan civilization. But the peoples with Y-DNA C, D and H were there before the Dravidians. who are associated with L. It was not only the Indoeuropeans who pushed other people out of the way when they migrated. We can find the same behavior perpetrated by Bantu speakers moving south in Africa, or Chinese speakers spreading out from the river valleys where they originated.Do we find the Bantu slaughtering people, establishing new religions, demonizing the old religions and claiming that the deities of the old religion were actully "demons", and raping the women to establish mixed race people in positions of authority to help them rule -like the Aryans did to the Dravidians?
If not, there can be no comparison.
And again, not only did the Caucasians do this to the Dravidians of India but they did it to countless other races and ethnic groups in other parts of the globe they traveled to.
As for America... all I can say is I want to see EVIDENCE!!! There is ZERO evidence of any Dravidian speakers coming to America before Columbus. If you wish to treat this as a contest, sorry but the Vikings win. They were the first non-Native Americans to come to America that we know of.
Well we don't "know" that they did, you merely BELIEVE that they did because you're willing to accept the little evidence you've seen of this.
There's probably far more evidence that Black Africans were coming here but that evidence is not accepted by you.
As far as the DNA talk, I'll let you have that conversation with others because I don't know enough about it to qualify having a discussion over it.As for the rest... there is a mountain of evidence confirming that humans evolved in Africa. And we evolved from a species who lived 7 million years ago and was also ancestral to chimps and bonobos. DNA confirms this. It really is not possible to argue with DNA. The analysis of it is today quite sophisticated and can clearly be used to trace ancestry.
Evolution is a theory and while there may be "evidence" of humans evolving there is certainly not any PROOF and they're probably won't be any.
Infact, I'd say there is more evidence that humanity has DEVOLVED from earlier greatness than EVOLVED, lol..but that's another conversation all together.Evolution is a racist theory espoused BY a racist Caucasian named Charles Darwin.
His work should be discredited and discarded by anyone serious about seeking the truth.
A lot to unravel, but you seem to dismiss science if it was put forth by a white person. That obviously is not a logical approach. Evolution is well proven, and is the basis of modern biology. The guy who invented the transistor was a racist but the transister still works...
Those stone heads are stylized. What I'm saying is that nobody looks just like that, with such exaggerated features. They're no more realistic than Picasso's cubism (in part influenced by W. African sculpture, by the way). But it is true that the features shown on those heads are those of local Natives, not Africans! The problem with many peoples' thinking in the USA is that this society is permeated with color racism and so we tend to see everything in black and white. If they're not white, then they're black! In fact blacks and whites together are only a third of humanity...
There IS proof of humans evolving, including evolution which is proceeding now. Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequencies in a population. The European diseases brought to America caused an evolution of the Native population so that now they are more resistant to measles and smallpox. And we have of course genetic and fossil evidence confirming the evolution of many life forms. from whales to molluscs.
Your view of the Bantu migrations is missing some elements. They did slaughter people, and enslave them. They did rape. Renegade Ngoni turned back northward and were viciously attacking villages. There were no whites around to inspire this, as there were for the Rwanda genocide. I can find numerous examples of such behavior committed by other than whites. Care to discuss the Arabs? Huns and Mongols and Turks? Euroimperialism certainly has been a half-millennium of outrage, extensive crimes against humanity, but if one looks beyond our own experience in the USA one finds many peoples engaging in such behavior. There is nothing genetically amiss with "white" people. It is the culture foisted on them which is problematic. This behavior for Europeans traces to the Yamnaya, one of the 3 major elements of our ancestry. Those were some sick mofos. That patriarcha imperialist culture has influenced many people from the Chinese to the Mideasterners and beyond. A blight on humanity, really, Yamnaya culture.
And anyone trained in science knows that one must have evidence. You cannot say, "This might have happened; prove that it didn't." You have to say, "Here's evidence for what happened." There is NO evidence for Africans in America. Van Sertima did NOT present any real evidence. Some Spaniard called Indians "negros" and so that means they were Africans? Spaniards at that time called dark-haired Europeans "negros". It proves nothing. They called people in the Philippines "negritos" (little blacks). Were those people Africans? No. I read "They Came Before Columbus" in the early 70s. It is dismissed by scholars because it is pop alternative archaeology not based on evidence but on speculation. Van Sertima is in the same category as Graham Hancock. Fantasy archaeology appealing to those who don't mind a lack of evidence to support fanciful stories.
Y'all should read "We Were Taught to Plant Corn. Not to Kill," by Tax'a León, a Quiché Maya from Guatemala. I was there when the wave of genocide began. They tortured and killed some of my friends. The death squads had my name on a list; I escaped by walking through the jungle into Belize. Over 200k people were killed between 1978 and 1986, just in Guatemala, never mind El Salvador and Nicaragua and Angola, other nations in which Reagan funded death squads. I once had a conversation with a Salvadoran woman in California during which we both concluded that we were just waiting for the E.M. (death squad) to come get us. I'm a white gringo yet I now live like this, always expecting that I will die by torture. The Salvadoran E.M. in fact were becoming active in Los Angeles, against gringos as well as Salvadorans. If I were Mayan I likely couldn't have escaped, couldn't have travelled and gotten into Belize. Instead they saw me as a tourist and ignored me, being a white gringo.
There was a genocide in Guatemala which few know about. As it was happening I was trying to tell people in the USA and nobody cared. Now I have to listen to people trying to steal Mayan legacy for themselves, and sorry, that is not acceptable. They have enough trouble trying to stay alive without someone stealing their ancestry and history. I had lived with those people, and not as a tourist. I was accepted by them, as a foreigner would be. I was invited to Christmas parties in Mayan homes. I knew them. A chimán was teaching me. This is not an academic matter.
It is analogous to how I feel about African-Americans. I've known them most of my life, I like them, yet they're mistreated. My friends have taken a lot of shit just for being black, and I don't have to explain that to y'all in here, obviously. Well I'm opposed to any injustice, but to take 3 examples, blacks, Jews and Mayans, 3 peoples I've lived among and the abuse of whom does NOT make me happy. To me a white person claiming Nordics created Egypt (when the facts are clear that it was black Africans) is no different from a black person claiming Native Americans. If you investigate online you will also find considerable Mexicans objecting to Van Sertima, et al., as they rightly see it as culture theft, culture vulturism, and it is not acceptable.
There are still civilizations and untold wonders only just being discovered or still unknown in Africa. WHY would you bother with trying to claim Olmecs or Maya?
So the Spanish somehow genocided only the African Maya, and left the native ones be? And the evidence? Nothing. It is made up. You see Native Mayans and so have to invent a story to make them black in the past. Never happened. I've seen a lot of old Mayan art, mostly relief sculptures. Never saw anyone depicted who looked African.
-
3 minutes ago, Chevdove said:
@Michel Montvert You completely skip over the references that I left. LOL.
I SAID THE MAYANS YOU MENTION, I believe you BUT they definitely came from A BLACK AFRICAN ORIGIN.
I LEFT REFERENCES, you skipped over
500 Nations Documentary--Kevin Cosner
Duke University Museum
NC STATE Fine Arts Museum
Again, I have a degree in science-- BIOLOGY!!!
LOL. I studied GENETICS! Yes, I don't believe the others that you stated along with Clyde Winters. I don't believe them one bit.
The evidence you put about NATIVE AMERICAN DNA--all of the haplogroups and how you feel they should look like-- is your opinion!
NOT FACT BASED AT ALL. If you don't want to believe the Original Mayans and etc. were massacred, it's your opinion.
ALL OF THE HAPLOGROUPS YOU STATED ARE OUT OF AFRICA. Anyway, here are some references:
=========================================================================
Y-DNA HAPLOGROUPS OF ALL MODERN HUMANS
Y-chromosomal Adam is the name given by researchers to the patrilineal
most recent common ancestor of all living humans at the root of
this tree. Estimates of the date when Y-chromosomal Adam lived have varied
significantly in different studies.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*MN [My Note]--This is NOT coming from Biblical records.
Scientist use the 'informal term BASAL-A for 'Adam'
but the dates of the secular research varies from the Biblical Adam.
However, the secular research on the Y-DNA correlates to the Bible.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Navigating the yDNA haplotree
The Human yDNA haplotree starts with
"yDNA Adam" at the base. He is the
paternal ancestor of all known humans.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*MN-- So, there are the A0, A00, A1bi... and what this means is that this A HAPLOGROUP reflects more than one male, however, it is the oldest haplogroup, and the earliest A-group would have a specific DNA MARK on the Y-chromosome that has not mutated. All of the A-Group BASAL Mark would be on ALL OTHER HAPLOGROUPS located as the BASE of their chromosomes THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED BASAL-A. But the other haplogroups [except for BT] mutated and these marks show up on their chromosomes.
THE MALE YDNA is very stable from father to son.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Archaeogenetics
In 2017, researchers successfully sequenced DNA from soil samples taken from Stratum III at El Sidron. They were able to identify Neanderthal mtDNA sequences …
The first sequencing of the Neanderthal Y-chromosome was successfully completed from a specimen from Sidron Cave. [17] . . . The Sidron Cave Y chromosome had never been identified before from other fossil hominin specimens and is not found in modern humans. [17]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidr%C3%B3n_Cave
*My Note: These Neanderthal fragments in the El Sidon cave as actually said to have been found in 1994. It was stated that there was not enough material to test. So, another technique was used to try and reconstruct the Y-chromosome and then compared it to modern human chromosomes. Because scientists believe that modern humans interbred with Neanderthals, a process called INTROGRESSION was used whereby information from modern YDNA was used so genetic material was transferred to the material from the Neanderthal
I'm not clear what you're arguing regarding the oldest Y-DNA known. I simply state that it is not the first human DNA, it is simply the oldest known! Obviously neandertals and other hominins also had Y-DNA.
It is not an OPINION that Natives have certain DNA, including the current Maya. and also it is not an OPINION that the Maya were not wiped out but persist! The Maya I knew were the descendants of those who were there before the Spanish arrived. They were not wiped out.
Just as in the USA, the USA people did kill a lot of Natives, but those who survive were not "replacements", but the survivors of the genocide. Genocide rarely kills everyone in a group. There are still Jews and Roma despite Hitler.
It is an insult to Native people and their cultures to claim they're all replacements for someone else... really not acceptable.
-
7 hours ago, richardmurray said:
One point, the nigerian government already demands money for using non black or non nigerian actors from advertisers so this is merely a step up from that
https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=2057&type=status
This seems trivial relative to the issue of oil revenues. It is still the case that the people living near oil installations suffer more detriment than benefit from it. The shady deals between BP, et al., and the Nigerian govt should be illuminated.
-
12 hours ago, daniellegfny said:
Will the real Slim Shady Joe Biden please stand up?
The individual Trump supporter is not a threat... until he answers another Trump call to insurrection, at which point he quickly becomes a treasonous threat to our freedom, as is Trump, of course.
Clearly Trump intends to be dictator, at which time there will be a bloodbath. Trump has stated this many times. He envies Putin's ability to liquidate journalists. He thinks he should have absolute power. He likes the way Kim gets things done.
Trump is a fascist traitor, and anyone supporting him is likewise. Biden is a politician and has to be polite. I am not and do not.
-
7 hours ago, Chevdove said:
@Michel Montvert Yes, this is true and I have many times provided references many times.
All MODERN HUMANS STEM FROM JUST ONE AFRICAN MALE INDIVIDUAL.
ALL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE COMMUNITY AGREES ON THIS. IT IS A FACT.
ALL MODERN HUMANS STEM FROM JUST ONE AFRICAN INDIVIDUAL and this report was published, I believe in 2012, however, all of the scientific internation organizations agreed on this in 2008. It took them until 2012 to finally publish. It's hard for most of the non-White world to accept this, but eventually, they're going to have to, because it is confirmed. Now, I will point you to the resource; this GENOME PROJECT was headed up in STANFORD UNIVERSITY.
ALL MALE HAPLOGROUPS HAVE JUST ONE ORIGIN!!!!
Now, this is NOT the same for the mtDNA. The mtDNA of females CAN be traced much farther back in time and there are more than one individual origins.
So, I will say it again, if there were NO AFRICAN MALES IN ANCIENT NORTH AMERICA, then all Native Americans would be either females or intersexed.
Nothing prior to the modern anatomically straight YDNA haplogroups were males, only intersexed. So the primitive hominids that you refer to were not modern humans at all. Were they here on earth, absolutely, but they were not anatomically straight males with any YDNA haplogroups of any modern males today.
Then theyse Mayans were not the original ones then, because many of the original Mayans that were killed off, were definitely African-typed. The ones you speak of, I would not disagree in that they are Mayan though.
i have given you the facts. Now, were the early American Indians intersexed--absolutely. There is no such presence of anatomically straight malefactors defined as Native Americans prior to the presence of African males. NONE!!!
Then they would not have any haplo-groups. They'd be intersexed.
I don't ascribe to this either. The Olmec heads, I believe they were African, but I've seen this debunked based on just the depictions of the stone heads.
There needs to be publications, references as well.
Clyde Winters, I believe was the one from Illinois college that was debunked on the Olmecs, I vaguely remember. and the others you mentioned I know of too and you are wrong. Their statements preceded the Scientific International community completely.
ALL MODERN MANKIND STEMS FROM ONE INDIVIDUAL, ONE AFRICAN MALE INDIVIDUAL.
ALL MALE HAPLO GROUPS STEM FROM THIS ONE MALE.
Prior to this, the Neanderthals were all intersexed or females.
To date, there is absolutely NO YDNA found of Neanderthals. NONE.
Their DNA is compared with primates because there is NO Y-DNA extracted from any samples to date.
They were obviously reproducing, however, NO ANATOMICALLY STRAIGHT MALES EXIST.
NONE.
The Maya were NOT killed off. They are still here. The same people. If they had been of African type and replaced by the current ones, then where did these current Maya come from? They sure look like Native Americans... real ones. not imaginary Celts, Basques, Chinese or Africans.
I think you are misinterpreting the DNA evidence for that one male. It does not mean that that was the only male human on earth, nor that before that there were no males! I'd suggest reading some basic scientific literature to understand this. Start with an Intro to Physical Anthro text.
Clyde Winters is especially clownish, but the others are also WRONG and that is easy to prove. I actually saw Rashidi on a video in Cambodia claiming the Khmer were black Africans. That makes his credibility ZERO. That group of charlatans is akin to Graham Hancock and the other "alternative archaeology" people who make things up for which they have no evidence. Nearly all of it dates back to 19th-century or earlier error, and perpetuates the false notion of radical diffusionism from Egypt of all civilization.
Think about it... somehow black Maya were wiped out, suddenly replaced by Maya with Native DNA... This makes no more sense than the average pronouncement by Trump.
Back to DNA: Neandertals had Y-DNA and they had gender. Nearly all animals do. There was no "intersexed" hominin species! And there were males before that one you reference! What that individual represents is the earliest appearance of the Y-DNA which is in modern humans. The oldest type currently alive is A, followed by B. Not surprisingly these are most common in Khoisan-Twa peoples. But what was the Y-DNA of the Homo sapiens found in Ethiopia 170k yrs old? We don't know, because DNA could not be extracted, due to the age of the fossils. That doesn't mean they had no Y-DNA! And was a 170k-yr-old individual the same as the oldest types now alive? Very unlikely.
Notice that chimps have Y-DNA. Virtually all vertebrates do. The earliest human Y-DNA goes back how far? compared to the 700k-yr (at least) separation between us and neandertals this is very young. Sapiens in Eurasia was able, nonetheless, to interbreed with neandertals (and others), as in W-Central Africa there was interbreeding with another species,. likely bodoensis. None of this could have occurred if those species did not have Y-DNA which was related to that of sapiens and compatible enough to produce some viable offspring.
Also an Intro to Genetics text might help you understand this. Use real academic material, not pop "alternative" stuff which is largely nonsense, and much of which sounds like Eurocentrism flipped on its head. Whites said whites created all civilization, so now Afrocentrics will claim that blacks created all civilization. Neither of these viewpoints is worth a plug nickel.
-
13 hours ago, Delano said:
Yes @Michel Montvert I am familiar with the magical elements in reckoning time. Both sets of Indians created a sacred and Mundane calendar. My feeling is that it will culminate in 2024
You may be right. I think it's likely that "no one knows the hour."
Mayan sources emphasize that humans will choose which way it will go. Humanity collectively will be given a chance to choose sanity over madness, light over darkness.
My trust in humanity is not high currently, but we'll see what happens.
-
2 hours ago, Delano said:
@Cynique I am in agreement. In Sanskrit,the word Akasha equates to zero and translates into sky or void. Some words in Sanskrit have numeric value. It's called epigraphic.
To live without the belief in magic seems tragic to me.
We live in the material world and in one which we could call "magical" for lack of a better term.
Humans' ability to be conscious of both realms varies with the individual, of course.
I am aware currently of a trajectory of changes which is running parallel to what we read in the news and is accessible to normal vision. Likely you are also aware of this.
In fact, we can take action in either or both realms.
As you mention Guatemala... some of what is going on is charted by the Mayan calender. The Vedic understanding of cycles is also relevant to this.
Some intense weather ahead!
-
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:
Michel Montvert
But... all humans on earth trace back to Africa!I personally don't believe that all people's came out of Africa.
Infact, I believe the opposite.
I believe all of the populations who are in Africa today the Black as well as the Arab and White MIGRATED there and settled in those lands for diffent reasons at different times.When you read the ancient as well as modern stories coming from Indigenous peoples all over the planet whether they are Native American, Dravidian, Mongolian, and even Aborigine...none of them claim to have come from Africa even if they gave that continent another name and claimed such.
The ONLY people who espouse the "Out of Africa" theory are Caucasian archeologists and historians and those people of color trained by them.
And me thinks that even most educated Caucasians know better, lol.
Native Americans arrived from Beringia. All of them. NO Native DNA has been found which is other than that.
Ok, now do THEY say that of themselves.....or is that more THEORY from Caucasian scientists and archeologists?
Although people make up stories and generate legends, it would seem to me that the people themselves would know more about their origins and that of their ancestors than Caucasian scientists and archeologists thousands of years AFTER the fact.
I was among the Maya and yes they are generally quite dark, but their features are nothing like those of Africans.
Right.
But I...and I don't speak for others...am not advocating that ALL or MOST or even a LARGE PORTION of Native Americans were originally Black.I believe that ALONG WITH the original Native Americans who generally are of a solid race of medium-light brown skinned people with coarse straight Black hair....you had various other groups who migrated to this Hemisphere for one reason or another at one time to another and settled among them.
One such group were Black Africans.
Another such group were Black Dravidians.
Another such group were Mongoloid Asians.
I'd even accept that some Nordic Caucasians sailed over too.
The evidence shows clearly that Europeans weren't the first people of the Eastern Hemisphere to "discover" the Western Hemisphere/Americas.I have a Cambodian friend who is also as dark as the Maya, and she isn't African either. Plenty of Eurasians had and have dark skin. They evolved to have a skin color which suited their environment.
I don't believe it's a matter of "evolution" so much as a matter of racial mixing that had been occurring for CENTURIES.
When you talk about places like Cambodia and Nepal and even Eurasians...they are close to India.
The Indian sub-continent was and still is inhabited by Dravidian peoples who are a Black people divided into various ethnic groups and tribes.
They are found all over the Indian sub-continent as well as Pakistan, Afghanistan, and all up into Eurasia as they are the original inhabitants of that region before the Aryans and other Caucasian groups invaded and killed them or drove them further South.
Many Cambodians, Thai, Nepalese, and other groups are primarily Mongolian mixed in with these original Dravidian peoples.
I would suggest that nobody's family history has much to say going back to Columbus' time. Perhaps a griot in West Africa could recite geneology that old. European records might have it for Europeans. But... there is no history which shows Africans in America! Nor Chinese! We need solid evidence.
Western scientists have all of the evidence (and I'm sure proof) that they need to determine this fact.
They know the truth, they're just covering it up...as usual.
Which is why I said they can't be trusted.
They have a well documented history of deception and covering up historical and archeological facts.
Sometimes they keep it covered, and other times they PRETEND to discover it recently and release it to the public after hiding it all along.
Many if not most White scientists have agreed to IGNORE the evidence and regulate it to speculation and pseudo-science, for racist purposes.For the same reason there is no proof and very little evidence that humans evolved from ape-like species....but it's still pushed and promoted as if it were an absolute fact.
Why?
It serve a racist purpose.
I gotta go and pick somebody up from work, lol.
To be continued.........
What I find problematic about this is that you seem to think that if you can put the adjective "Caucasian" before "scientist" that invalidates the scientist! So you are then rejecting the scientific method altogether? Facts, evidence, the hypothetical-deductive method... these things are an expression of logic which is independent of the ancestral identity of the scientist doing the work!
And if you are going to make statements about peoples' ancestries, you have to have evidence. And you have to use the labels correctly. Dravidian speakers. for example, were NOT the first people in India. The are very likely the creators of the Harappan civilization. But the peoples with Y-DNA C, D and H were there before the Dravidians. who are associated with L. It was not only the Indoeuropeans who pushed other people out of the way when they migrated. We can find the same behavior perpetrated by Bantu speakers moving south in Africa, or Chinese speakers spreading out from the river valleys where they originated.
As for America... all I can say is I want to see EVIDENCE!!! There is ZERO evidence of any Dravidian speakers coming to America before Columbus. If you wish to treat this as a contest, sorry but the Vikings win. They were the first non-Native Americans to come to America that we know of. They are the only ones for whom there is solid evidence. There may have been Polynesian contact with South America, but oddly while Polynesian DNA is not found in S. America, S. American DNA is found on Easter Island! Nobody is quite sure how that happened.
But, we have Viking artifacts on Labrador which are undeniable. WHERE is there any such evidence for anyone else coming here? And if it's a contest. I'd point out that Labrador is not really that far from Greenland and so the Viking voyage to Canada was not nearly as impressive, really. as that of Columbus who had to cross a lot more ocean to get to the Caribbean from Spain.
In very ancient times there is evidence of East Africans sailing to India to trade. Perhaps that was also more impressive than the Viking voyage. But it's not a contest.
As for the rest... there is a mountain of evidence confirming that humans evolved in Africa. And we evolved from a species who lived 7 million years ago and was also ancestral to chimps and bonobos. DNA confirms this. It really is not possible to argue with DNA. The analysis of it is today quite sophisticated and can clearly be used to trace ancestry.
Those who left Africa about 60k years ago had mtDNA types M & N, which evolved from L3 which is the common type in northeast Africa. And there are now known fossils of Homo sapiens 300k years old, from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco. There is no fossil evidence of sapiens in Eurasia until the OOA event.
The people who entered America were mixed of several types found in Siberia. Y-DNA C is the type of early OOA migrants around the coast of Eurasia. Type Q is sister clade of R (the type of Indoeuropeans), originating in central Asia/Siberia, and so Native Americans are most closely related to northeast Asians, mostly Siberians. and Indoeuropeans.
Type C is common in eastern Eurasia. It is in SE Asia, among Chinese, in the islands, and in eastern Siberia. In places like Cambodia there is no appreciable L (Dravidian). The Indian connection to the Khmer was in Medieval times when Cambodia was Hindu and Indian traders were there. Those traders of course were of Dravidian and Indoeuropean ancestry.
Every region we look at is mixed, with few exceptions. The Andamanese aren't much mixed. But nearly everyone else is. Europeans are a mixture primarily of 3 ancient groups. Native Americans of 2. Indians of about 5, including the original C & D people. We can now trace migration histories with great accuracy thanks to genomie analysis.
There is still ZERO DNA found in America from precolumbian samples which is other than of the Native American types.
-
Time is a means to prevent everything from happening at once.
There is a theory that the spiral of time as it relates to events on earth is tightening, becoming more rapid, compressed. Empires now rise and fall faster than in the past. Information is being accumulated at a ever-increasing rate. As all of this converges, one theory has it that everything will be resolved, we will at geometrically increasing speed come to realization.
One person putting forth such ideas was Terence McKenna.
-
1
-
-
On 8/30/2022 at 11:49 AM, Chevdove said:
That is absolutely insane @Michel Montvert as if I don't know my own family history.
But also, I studied science and have a degree in science.
Without the presence of any African malefactor, there can be absolutely no males in this entire earth.
The origin of all modern mankind stems from one African individual.
So without any presence of any Africans in the entire continents of the Americas, then all of the Indians would be intersexed.
But... all humans on earth trace back to Africa! There are not only one male to whom all human DNA can be traced, nor only one female. But all such people would have to be in Africa, obviously, to have been ancestral to all humans.
Native Americans arrived from Beringia. All of them. NO Native DNA has been found which is other than that. They arrived in America probably some 25k years ago, which is at least 35k years after their ancestors had left Africa. They had changed considerably, and had new evolved DNA markers which were not present in Africa.
I was among the Maya and yes they are generally quite dark, but their features are nothing like those of Africans. I have a Cambodian friend who is also as dark as the Maya, and she isn't African either. Plenty of Eurasians had and have dark skin. They evolved to have a skin color which suited their environment.
I would suggest that nobody's family history has much to say going back to Columbus' time. Perhaps a griot in West Africa could recite geneology that old. European records might have it for Europeans. But... there is no history which shows Africans in America! Nor Chinese! We need solid evidence. DNA, human remains. cultural traits, crops... something! We have nothing. Van Sertima provided no references to his "facts", his work was not peer reviewed. and so it is categorized as "pop alternative history/anthropology" and based on no evidence. There are black scholars of course doing very legitimate work and affirming the truth of black history, for example, S.O.Y. Keita who has established that BLACK people were in predynastic and early dynastic Egypt, or Felix Chami of the Univ. of Dar es Salaam who proved with archaeology that the coastal Swahili-speaking people created the civilization there (mainland. Pemba, Mafia Is., Zanzibar), not Persians or Arabs as has been stated by non-African scientists.
But I have listened to such as David Imhotep, Runuoko Rashidi, Clyde Winters, etc., and can easily debunk their "everyone was once really black" claims. I can also easily debunk any Eurocentric who thinks that Egyptian civilization was NOT created by black people. And we can easily find Native people in Veracruz and Tabasco who look exactly like those Olmec stone heads. 100% Native Americans of Beringian origin. You may have heard of Luzia and the Lagoa Santa fossils. They also were analyzed and are 100% Native American.
Really among some of my European ancestors, such as Dutch, French, English and Scots, one can find African admixture. But none has been found in America.
Among my own Appalachian people there are a lot of stories about the "Indians" in our ancestry. Very often these are tales without any substantiation. My family's DNA was analyzed and was pure European. That doesn't mean there isn't an Indian in the woodpile, necessarily, but it does mean that family histories are often invented. A similar invention is heard often from African-Americans who deny they're part white, and claim to be part Indian, yet DNA analysis shows them to be mixed of African and European usually with no Native component at all. I understand why people would like to deny white ancestry, ok, but facts are facts.
On 8/31/2022 at 6:11 PM, Pioneer1 said:
Michel Montvert
They didn't get it. Mexicans are NATIVE, Spanish are WHITE, ok... Mexicans whom gringos think look Spanish often really do not.Well put.
I am always bothered by the lack of understanding among the various peoples discussed here. Blacks (USA), Mexicans, Indians from the USA, all 3 groups misunderstand each other. Since I'm fairly familiar with all 3, I find myself always having to "translate" between them... translate cultural facts if not language, per se. And whites... well, same as everyone else, it depends if we're dealing with those who are conscious or those who are not. (My generation said "conscious" instead of "woke", right.)I know you're not lying because I've witnessed the same things over and over again for years, especially with people of color who come from other countries.
It's not so much that you're educated, have traveled to other nations, and have experienced other cultures to the point that you're qualified to explain these different cultures...to most of them it's the fact that you're White and they TRUST and RESPECT you more than they do eachother.
I've often seen Latinos ignore what a Black manager is telling them until a White supervisor of lesser rank comes along and tells them to do it and they do it.
Having traveled a lot myself I've seen over and over how Whites have to play "translator" between other races and even between other groups of Black people because many of them don't want to have anything to do with each other but will gladly cooperate with the Whites.
Often times it takes a White person to settle the differences among people of color.
I will disagree on the notion of Africans here before Columbus. There is no good evidence for it that any anthropologist recognizes.
The word "recognizes" is the key word, because a lot of things exist that people simple don't or won't recognize.
We know that most anthropologists are either Caucasian or they are people of color who went to institutions controlled by Caucasians.
We also know that many if not most Caucasians tend to be racist and have a long and documented history of lying about history, covering up archeological, religious, and other historical findings and keeping them secret for decades.
So for those reasons alone we can't trust what most Western Archeologists present to us about the past.
Van Sertima was academically a farce. And this notion contains the idea that Africans were responsible for Native civilizations, which is just more culture-thieving such as whites did rampantly, even claiming that the mounds in Ohio were built by Romans or Greeks or Basques or anyone WHITE they could think of. But, this is a huge topic and so I leave it with that.
I'm curious as to exactly what part of Ivan Van Sertima's material has been proven false by "academia"?And the key word will be PROVEN; not simply AGREED upon not to be accepted by a group of Whites.
I'm talking actually PROVEN incorrect?NO real anthropologists have seen any legitimate evidence for pre-Columbian contact.
What about the huge Olmec Heads found in the southern coast of Mexico?
The features are unmistakably African.
And they're wearing helmets, obviously not slaves.
This may not be absolute PROOF that Africans were here before Columbus but it's certainly strong EVIDENCE that they were.There are many Youtube videos, notably by a guy named de Montellano, which debunk all of this easily. If you look at the Native people of that area, they look just like those stone heads. Keep in mind the features are exaggerated... nobody actually looks like that. This is another case of people seeing Native faces and imagining they see someone else. Like Mayans... they are not much mixed really. In the Highlands they look quite like unmixed Natives.
Notice that those claiming African Olmecs mix up the dates of the imaginary visitors. They were Egyptians. they were Mande in Medieval times, and so on. None of it matches, even in the work of the same author.
A handful of Norse settled briefly in Labrador, and left plenty of remains by which they can easily be identified. WHERE is such evidence for Africans here?
There would be some DNA, certainly... or some remains... or SOMETHING that is African!
I should also mention...
Nobody has to disprove anything van Sertima said, because he failed to prove anything! That is the problem with his work. He doesn't even try to prove it, just states things which many want to believe, and so they do.
1. African DNA in pro-Columbian America
2. African human remains
3. African cultural artifacts
4. African boats
5. African crops
Van Sertima never shows us ONE bit of real evidence of any of those things here in America. Nor does anyone else. And would not they have returned to Africa? Most claim that they did, that they were trading back and forth. And so I'd have to ask for some evidence of American crops in Africa, as well! Or American Indians. Almost immediately the Spanish were taking Native Americans to Spain. Would not the Africans have done the same?
Recognizing That Democrats Don’t Want Peace
in Culture, Race & Economy
Posted
I don't feel that we can blame the people. Living under such a system, one is terrorized into submission. I've lived in such a country, where people are viciously abused yet the system grinds on decade after decade... When speaking out means a torture-death by machete, one keeps quiet.
Trump admires Kim precisely because he has kept such a tight lid on that concentration camp of a country. Trump wishes he could control all of us like that.