Jump to content

Florida teacher resigns after pictures of Dr. King and Harriet Tubman are removed


Recommended Posts

Those who really think the Republican Party is a force for good need to understand this organization's agenda is to whitewash the country's history and that includes any mention of Black luminaries.

The school district labeled the pictures "age inappropriate." Since when are paintings or photos of Dr. King and Harriet Tubman inappropriate? They have never depicted in a state of undress or in a compromising position.

Explain why Black History must be erased in deference to the GOP's fanatical hatred of anything they claim is CRT? 

Florida teacher resigns after school removes pictures of Dr. King and Harriet Tubman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real question is why are Black folks allowing our history to be whitewashed.  The people should be using their platforms to draw attention to it.

 

Elected Black leaders should be fighting on our behalf to maintain our history too.  Instead, they're busily chasing abortion rights, gun control and other initiatives that are important to white supremacists.😎

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ProfD said:

The real question is why are Black folks allowing our history to be whitewashed.  The people should be using their platforms to draw attention to it.

 

Elected Black leaders should be fighting on our behalf to maintain our history too.  Instead, they're busily chasing abortion rights, gun control and other initiatives that are important to white supremacists.😎

Did China's Nuclear Tests Kill Thousands and Doom Future Generations? -  Scientific American

 

 

YOU BEAT ME TO THE PUNCH MAN!!!

I was JUST about to type, why the hell are Black folks in Florida ALLOWING these racist bastids to sit up and make moves like this?

This is one of the reasons I said Kanye had a point about that 400 year choice thing.
Too many niggas do STUPID shit and make DUMB moves that most folks with good sense wouldn't or wouldn't allow.

You SEE these racists bastids sitting up there trying to erase your history and instead of going head up and hard on they ass trying to take over the school board and kicking THEM out....these fools sit their with their arms folded crying and complaining about what "them people" are doing!

Man.....niggaz really need to grow a pair collectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing Black people can do because the politicians who prefer this don't seem to get a lot of blowback. 

And Blacks who live in their states don't even complain about it. 

Black leaders do not need to be fighting against this. That battle was fought and won by Black students in the late 1960's when Black History classes began to appear in high schools, colleges and universities.

Why don't some of you ask the folks who lionize Republicans why they don't speak up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Stefan said:

Black leaders do not need to be fighting against this. That battle was fought and won by Black students in the late 1960's when Black History classes began to appear in high schools, colleges and universities.

Why don't some of you ask the folks who lionize Republicans why they don't speak up?

Maybe I should be more specific because not all Black folks care about the struggle of AfroAmericans...

 

Everything AfroAmerican leadership fought and died for back in the 1960s is being rolled back.

 

Yeah, I definitely think current AfroAmerican leadership absolutely should be fighting to preserve our history and rights. After all, that's how they made it to their current positions.

 

But, AfroAmerican leadership should not be alone in the fight. ALL AfroAmericans should be using their voices and platforms to speak up and out against the whitewashing of our history.

 

It would be great if other Black folks join us in the fight to preserve our history too.😎

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Stefan did you, or anyone commented, read the whole article? What do you think about the source?

 

I ask because there are lot of bold conclusions about that are not supported by the article.

 

 These are the quotes:

 

When he asked her what she was doing, "she said something along the lines of it wasn't age appropriate. Something like that," James remembered. 

He told the paper that while he does not remember her mentioning race at the time, he noted that she also grabbed the photo of Obama that was on his desk as it did not fit up on the board. 

 

"She picked it up and said, 'You don't need to put this up either,'" he recalled to the paper. "She said — I can't remember exactly what she said — but she said, 'the kids are too young' or something like that

 

Home boy can’t even remember what the lady who took the picture down said. Why didn’t he put them back up? he was so upset he just quit the job?! 
 

So are we supposed to hit the streets in protest over this article on People magazine’s website? This article was designed to draw traffic by paying on people emotions with nothing more than gossip. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stefan

 

 

Quote


There is nothing Black people can do because the politicians who prefer this don't seem to get a lot of blowback. 

 


There's ALWAYS something Black people can do.
The question is WILL we do it or will we sit down and allow it to happen?

 

A lot of our people are just plain lazy and indifferent and don't care what is happening in society except when it affects them PERSONALLY.
So as far as they're concerned, removing iconic Black figures from history is no major matter.

 

 

 

Quote



And Blacks who live in their states don't even complain about it. 

 


In Florida you have a lot of Black people from the Caribbean who see their fight and plight as different from AfroAmericans so they don't see it as "their" concern even thought they are part of the target as well.
All they need is a little PROPER education and an incentive to put them on the right track.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ProfD

 

Quote


Maybe I should be more specific because not all Black folks care about the struggle of AfroAmericans...

 

 

Lol...
A lot of AFROAMERICANS don't care about the struggle of AfroAmericans.

 

 

 

Quote


Everything AfroAmerican leadership fought and died for back in the 1960s is being rolled back.

 

 

Much of this new generation is too busy getting high and chasing after White and Brown (Latino) coochie to unite and focus themselves on goals to accomplish like our grandparents back in the day.

During Segregation when Black people were FORCED to live and work together, they had little choice but to unite because we were all we had.  But as soon as so-called "Integration" initiated, the self hatred showed itself in how quickly so many Black folks moved away from eachother and continue to do so.


 This generation of Black youth are too focused on getting along with other races than on self-empowerment.

 

 

 

Quote


It would be great if other Black folks join us in the fight to preserve our history too.

 

 

Sometimes it's a matter of making them aware of what our Ancestors fought for in this country.  A lot of Africans don't know the history of Nat Turner, Harriet Tubman, Denmark Vessey, ect....They only know Martin Luther King and many of them don't even know HIM.


They only know America as it is TODAY after they've migrated here but they don't know nor have they seen the OLD America before we put our foot in these White folk's asses.

They didn't get to see Black power in action like the riots or even powerful uncompromosing Black politicians like Mayor Coleman Young.
 

Mayor Coleman A. Young Before the United States Joint Economic Committee,  September 24, 1975 - YouTube

"Let me tell yall racist muthafuckaz one thing!
We ain't having no "gun buy back" programs 
in the city of Detroit until them racist bastards
out in the suburbs give up THEY goddamn guns
too!
Then we'll call it even. "


Reporter:  "Well Mr. Mayor, what about the rate
of violent crime in your city because of these---"


Young: "So damn what!
If yall scared to come to Detroit and scared some
niggaz are gonna rob your ass....stay the fuck out!
We don't need you here!"

 


🙄 REAL EXCHANGE between Mayor Coleman Young and some news reporters back in the 1970s on live television!

Old School Black folks DID NOT PLAY with these racists like this "new breed" of dope smoking youngsters today.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ProfD

Or we could improve OUR condition as AfroAmericans and become so strikingly successful and impressive as a community other Black groups would have no choice BUT to submit to our greatness and seek to emulate us, get next to us, and invite us to trade with their nations.

I'm beginning to understand that simply asking Africans to like us and respect us simply because we're Black won't be enough.  We have to give them and other people a REASON to like us and want to be around us.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Troy

What photos of Dr. King and Harriet Tubman would be age inappropriate? Did Dr. King and Harriet Tubman pose for photos while naked?

Kindly describe what photos of these two historical figures would be inappropriate? 

Because school children view photos and paintings of George Washington on his white horse. They're never inappropriate. 

If you love Republicans and Trump so much that you're now making excuses for their CRT nonsense, then have at it. My position is they've been wrong about this from the beginning. 

YOU need to read more stories on this. This situation has to do only with racism:

https://news.yahoo.com/florida-teacher-quits-complains-staff-045338975.html

Children need to learn about the incredible life, legacy and changes brought about by Dr. King and Sojourner Truth. This should be kept secret from school children?

CRT is a law course taught at the university level. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ProfD

Parents of Black school children are perfectly capable of making their voices heard, writing letters and holding up signs in protest. We need to stop demanding by default that others do what we can do ourselves. 
 

The whole reason why this ban books by Black authors movement became powerful is because White parents often stormed school board meetings, screamed for news media coverage and wrote their own letters to get what they wanted. Black parents can do the same thing, but respectfully.

I just don't get the sitting back and see what happens stuff. Because Black History is U.S. History

There are some countries, Germany is one, were education laws demand the teaching of The Holocaust. In the U.S., 23 states mandate the teaching of The Holocaust. Why should our history be left out? This does not mean images of naked concentration camp detainees or victims will be shown to school children. But we've all seen photos of Anne Frank. She is clothed. So, why can't school children see photos of Dr. King and Sojourner Truth?
 

Michael James, the teacher at an Escambia County public school, said that the employee who removed the posters was exhibiting racist behavior when she said that the billboard he had designed was “age inappropriate,” the Pensacola News Journal reports. She also wanted a photo of Barack Obama removed. 
 

James was using images of figures like Martin Luther King Jr., Harriett Tubman and former President Obama.

Read this story: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3598094-florida-teacher-quits-after-staff-removed-posters-of-black-leaders/


And that's what this is about: Plain old Racism. Nothing else. 

https://go2tutors.com/michael-james-black-men-posters/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That I agree with that. But on book banning and now, photograph banning, we, the people can respond to this ourselves. We are capable of making our own points and expressing our own opinions. 

I don't remember the state or even the school, but there was a Black student who had been banned from graduating with their class either because of some behavior issue or because they wore dreads.

This ticked off a lot of folks o FB. So, I found the school's email address, the principal's name, and wrote a sample protest letter. I urged those who were angry to copy and paste it and send it to the school's email address. Then I notified the local newspaper. The upshot was a couple of days later, the school relented and said publicly the student would walk the stage.

That's all it took. No one got arrested. No one was fined. 

Which will probably not work in this case because the teacher has already quit. 

This CRT stuff has been going on for a while now. This is why I'm pretty sure most Black politicians are aware of it.

There was nothing age inappropriate about those photos. It was just another attempt to prevent school children in Mr. James' class, (who were mostly Black), from learning about their heroes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is another time I hate to be right. Watching all the nonsense propaganda regurgitated by the white right over "CRT" (which none of them know anything about), I was telling some friends here, watch, this is about removing Harriet Tubman and MLK from the schools. I know some teacher will teach about one of them and be accused of CRT.

 

And here we are. Are the goals of this Trump MAGA movement clear to everyone yet? They are the White Citizens Councils. They are the KKK. They are what has happened in far too many countries---fascism. Overt open fascism, not the friendly fascism we've had so far.

 

I was a teacher. I'm glad I taught the truth. I'm glad that in those days I could get away with it!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Montvert

I tell Black teachers....JUST TEACH THE TRUTH ABOUT HISTORY.

No need to give it a name to draw attention and scrutiny to yourself and your agenda.
Just do like the White racist teachers do and teach the kids what you want them to know without announcing your plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1

There are now laws in place to allow parents and others to eavesdrop on lessons in some states. They can report educators they believe are being "woke." You can bet some will be brought up on charges. The Florida teacher in question, Michael James, resigned rather than go through all of this.

Anti-woke people can be really violent. They have no problem using their fists, an object or guns to make their point. Teaching used to be a honorable profession. These days, thousands of teachers use their own money to buy classroom supplies. The photos in Mr. James' classroom would have likely made students proud to see their own represented as leaders and luminaries.

Now, to push back against the crap that I do not prove my contentions, here is proof of anti-woke and anti-CRT teaching laws:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/petergreene/2022/02/16/teacher-anti-crt-bills-coast-to-coast-a-state-by-state-guide/?sh=3657aba84ff6

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2022 at 8:13 AM, Stefan said:

Kindly describe what photos of these two historical figures would be inappropriate? 

 

This is a tactic of yours Stefan that I find frustrating.  Who said anything about Tubman and figures -- ones highlighted on THIS SITE as in appropriate?

 

I asked if you read the article you posted.  While it might seem obvious since you posted it, I only questioned this based upon the conclusions you've drawn. 

 

The word republican wasn't even used in the article and age inappropriate was not attributed to any school official.  The guy who used it wasn't even sure.  Somehow you've managed to use this article as proof the republican party is white washing Black history.

 

Look, white folks can not erase our history unless we allow them to do it.  There are plenty of sources that celebrate our history and most of it will not be found via a Google search.  

 

Rather than uplifting an article that was clearly crafted to deceive and sow controversy in an effort to attract eye balls for ads revenue, can't you find  any Black sites that highlight, Martin Luther King Jr., Harriet Tubman, Colin Powell, George Washington Carver, and President Barack Obama

 

We can choose to uplift the content of media that could care less about us, that create boogie men out of thin air, or we can uplift the platforms that celebrate our stories, history and culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Troy

 I have tactics. I am troll, remember? 

I write with Authority and that ticks off people who think deep down inside anything they post must be true and never opposed.

I tire of engaging folks who are dead set on supporting the racist GOP agenda.

Here is a link (from a fellow accused of never offering any) with the supposed offense in the headline:

https://people.com/politics/florida-teacher-resigns-after-school-district-removes-posters-historic-black-americans/

I imagine this is the start of a month-long dispute over semantics. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael James, the Florida teacher who resigned, had taught Special Education students for 15 years.

This school year, he was slated to teach a small class of six grade school students who are autistic. According to the Autism Society of the U.S., about 11% of Special Education pupils in the U.S. are autistic. Under the law, they are entitled to a free public school education, the society said.

It was supposed to be James' first year teaching in Florida and he spent $58 of his own money to decorate his classroom. He simply wanted his young students to see themselves in photos of heroes such as Dr. King, Secretary Colin Powell, Harriet Tubman, Barack Obama and others.

Other than a People magazine story that said his students were going to range in ages from kindergarten to fifth grade, I don't see why anyone would object to these photos unless one thinks the thought of young children glancing at real Black heroes in a classroom setting would be a thing of horror.

 

Fla. Teacher Resigns After School District Removes His 'Age Inappropriate' Images of Historic Black Americans

It is a terrible shame, because Mr. James seems a committed and dedicated educator and we need more of those. 

By the way, Sunshine State Gov. Ron DeSantis has a reputation for opposing any mention of African American heroes in education. He seems to also support White Supremacists, according to this story: 

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/lawmakers-jewish-groups-call-florida-211029766.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's unfortunate that the Florida teacher chose to resign instead of stand and fight.

 

The Sunshine State is an appropriate nickname only due to the weather. 

 

That whack a mole azz  governor is running Florida like a can of mixed nuts. 😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/13/2022 at 2:57 PM, ProfD said:

Maybe I should be more specific because not all Black folks care about the struggle of AfroAmericans...

 

Everything AfroAmerican leadership fought and died for back in the 1960s is being rolled back.

 

Yeah, I definitely think current AfroAmerican leadership absolutely should be fighting to preserve our history and rights. After all, that's how they made it to their current positions.

 

But, AfroAmerican leadership should not be alone in the fight. ALL AfroAmericans should be using their voices and platforms to speak up and out against the whitewashing of our history.

 

It would be great if other Black folks join us in the fight to preserve our history too.😎

Since Reagan they've been hard at work rolling back EVERYTHING positive that has been done. They'd go right back to the Emancipation Proclamation if they could.

 

I get your frustration about apathetic black folks. I have the same frustration about apathetic ALL folks! We have to always remember that when talking to any ordinary person we're competing with thousands of hours of media brainwash and distraction. The system targets this at blacks, latinos, whites... everyone.

 

I repeatedly bring up the example of my own people, Appalachians in West Virginia. They consistently vote for their oppressors. They are reamed thoroughly by the system of coal companies and corrupt politicians at every turn and they just keep coming back for more. Now they've got them all salivating for Trump and white-right nonsense which does not help them in the least.

 

And how does this happen? Look at the ads on this site. The most prominent one is about "the Marxist roots of CRT". The GOP discovered "CRT", or their imaginary strawman version of it, and it works well for them. They've got millions of whites in an uproar that their children are being taught to hate themselves. To black folks they don't mention CRT, they talk about "the Democratic plantation". Say the word "plantation" and black people notice. The rest is bullcrap, but they've got their attention and off we go. Notice every time they find ONE black person voting for Trump they go on about a movement of black people toward the Republicans. They've been going on about this for a long time. If it were true, by now 94.5% of blacks would be Republicans.

 

Just as useful for them: make people think it's all nonsense, not worth their time. Don't bother voting, black folks. That battle was won back in the 60s remember? You're "free" now, go back to sleep. Just one of endless variations of the same tune they're singing to nearly everyone. An old version of it to whites in the South was, "You've got it good! You're better off than the blacks! Shut up!"

On 8/14/2022 at 9:25 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Michael Montvert

I tell Black teachers....JUST TEACH THE TRUTH ABOUT HISTORY.

No need to give it a name to draw attention and scrutiny to yourself and your agenda.
Just do like the White racist teachers do and teach the kids what you want them to know without announcing your plans.

It was easy for me to do this, because I taught mostly where there were no white students. In S-Central L.A., my first principal was Afrocentric. She heard my rap and left me alone. So they learned African and Mexican history. I learned not to tell anyone anything, except the few teachers whom I could trust, who could be black, white or Mexican. I quickly learned one cannot expect to trust someone just because they're black or Mexican.

 

But when I did get around white students, even where the white teachers were all progressives, feminists, etc., I ran into problems whenever I started teaching other than the basic curriculum. I was teaching about the Iroquois Plan of Peace and there were progressive white teachers hiding around the doorjamb spying on me and reporting to the principal. I found that beyond acknowledging their existence and establishing that they should not be maltreated, any content involving Native culture was problematic. We can only look at the Iroquois through white eyes, not present them on their own terms.

 

Yes you are entirely correct about the need for stealth. Stealth-bomb them with the truth!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to give teachers something to work with so they can do their jobs.  Parents should always be their children's first teachers. When I attended school black history, neither its true nor sanitized versions were taught.  What I learned about it was brought to my attention by my father. Today black parents, themselves, should know enough about black history to pass some of it on to their kids and give the teachers a head start by making these kids receptive to their authentic heritage.  This has to be a collaborative effort. 

 

 The diversity found in the black community trickles down in all areas and individuals have their own goals and priorities  As usual, the home environment of black kids influences their the trajectory.  Not to mention. that there isn't that much about black history that has to be tweaked.  Black kids could be told in one sitting that their people were brought to this country against their will and held in bondage for 400 years by southern white plantation owners, and that they were abused and not treated as equals because they were considered inferior by both their masters and the Constitution.  And that all attempts to break the chains of their bondage were thwarted by the cruel slave masters until the South lost the war to keep their slaves who were finally emancipated by a President - with ulterior motives..  And that all of this is what reinforced the racism which exists to this day, in spite of how blacks have proven themselves to be equal by deed and accomplishment, - something kids can presently see for themselves. It should also be explained that the reason "America, the beautiful", the "Leader of the Free World" doesn't want all of this revealed or emphasized is because this democratic republic doesn't want its stellar image to be tarnished by its disgraceful past.  Period.

 

 Conservative whites fear that teaching these unvarnished truths will result in their kids being subjected to retaliation from black classmates. They also want to absolve themselves from the sins of their forefathers, choosing to ignore how the past  paved the way for the present white skin privilege that continues to benefit them. Of course, all of this has become politicized.

 

And the beat goes on... 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michel Montvert

 

 

 I was teaching about the Iroquois Plan of Peace and there were progressive white teachers hiding around the doorjamb spying on me and reporting to the principal. I found that beyond acknowledging their existence and establishing that they should not be maltreated, any content involving Native culture was problematic. 

 

Ofcourse.
On top of what you just said about covering up true Native American culture, there is also a movement among many Whites to STEAL Native American culture and identity and this has been going on for decades.

If you look at most of the people who claim to represent most of the Native American tribes in political, legal, and public relations issues....it's usually some White person with a feather in their ear and long hair.
They may CLAIM Native American heritage but obviously look nothing like the actual original Native Americans they are claiming.


......BTW I think it's time for true Liberals to reform that word "Progressive" because it's been sky-jacked by almost everyone with an agenda that is NOT Progressive.
It used to be pretty clear that the Liberal agenda was for AfroAmerican and women's rights, pro-union/labor, and supported programs to help the poor.  That was pretty much it and if you supported those things you were Liberal.  Then they changed it to "progressive" and are adding 2 or 3 special interests a year to the movement and forcing people to go along with it or be labeled a Trump supporting right-winger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:


On top of what you just said about covering up true Native American culture, there is also a movement among many Whites to STEAL Native American culture and identity and this has been going on for decades.

If you look at most of the people who claim to represent most of the Native American tribes in political, legal, and public relations issues....it's usually some White person with a feather in their ear and long hair.
They may CLAIM Native American heritage but obviously look nothing like the actual original Native Americans they are claiming.


......BTW I think it's time for true Liberals to reform that word "Progressive" because it's been sky-jacked by almost everyone with an agenda that is NOT Progressive.
It used to be pretty clear that the Liberal agenda was for AfroAmerican and women's rights, pro-union/labor, and supported programs to help the poor.  That was pretty much it and if you supported those things you were Liberal.  Then they changed it to "progressive" and are adding 2 or 3 special interests a year to the movement and forcing people to go along with it or be labeled a Trump supporting right-winger.

Yes, things for Natives politically have become a muddle, with the Ward Churchills (white guy playting Native as you describe) not to mention plenty of Native people with crazed ideas who get attention. And... the sad fact is that even many legitimate tribal members have plenty of white blood. That's what history did to them. There was a lot of mixing, and most of the "half-breeds" ended up on the Native side of the line, likely, or were absorbed by the whites. Also... USA history included reservations, boarding schools, a LOT of violent and vicious pressure to assimilate. to lose indigenous culture. Then in the 60s Indians became hip and many whites wanted to be them. Some of the shenanigans which went on were extreme. Especially offensive was the habit of hippies who'd spent 2 weeks with some tribe then holding workshops at high prices to teach "Native Spiritual Ways" and so on.

 

I have a good perspective on that issue since I did for real live among Native people in Guatemala including studying with a chimán, or priest, but things are not as those hippies taking advantage would have it. One does not learn spiritual ways in a workshop from another white person. This is analogous to the whites presuming to speak politically for Indians. I was told, look, you have learned things. You could perform some of the functions of a chimán here, but you are not Mayan, and so you have no relevance to anyone and nobody would pay you any mind. Also, when you go back among the gringos, you will find that they won't listen to a word you say. So what you know, you can use selectively, wisely, but don't think you can play the role of a chimán anywhere. And NO this is not to be sold for filthy lucre!

 

Since I've spent time with indigenous people from Guatemala and Mexico, I see some significant differences from those of the USA. Here they really got culturaly hammered, and hard. South of the border millions of people speak indigenous languages, and there are large areas with the communities and cultures intact. They were not moved to reservations. Those relocated onto "haciendas" (encomiendas, fincas, or whichever word is used) did lose language and some culture, and they are what we know today as average Mexicans. But one can perceive that the indigenous people fared better than here, and despite extensive prejudice and discrimination still were not culturally thrashed as much as those in the USA. The dynamic is not the same at all. In Mexico, the average person, sometimes called a "mestizo", a Spanish speaker, considers themselves to have indigenous roots. is aware that much of their culture is indigenous, and does not see those who retain indigenous language and identity as "the other". "Somos todos mexicanos," one woman told me when I asked her about the ethnic variety in Mexico. And she was light-skinned and did not speak a native language.

 

Another thing which screwed up the Native voice in the USA is that whatever outlets there were for their thinking and their politics were thoroughly infiltrated and subverted by the FBI in the 70s. A good example, Akwesasne Notes, a newspaper produced by Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) activists. If you're familiar with how COINTELPRO dirty-tricked the BPP you'll know what sort of games I'm talking about. And at Pine Ridge in the 70s the FBI in collaboration with corrupt tribal govt instituted a reign of terror in response to AIM activism.

 

That sort of activity does not occur in Mexico, with the notable exception of the vicious miilitary response by the Mexican govt to the Zapatista uprising in Chiapas in the 80s. It is not that indigenous people "have it good" in Mexico, just that the situation is different, and they are not nearly as vilified and abused there as in the USA. In some cases they remain relatively remote, another factor which aids in culture retention (e.g., the Tarahumara, Huichol, Lacandón).

 

P.S. Did y'all know that there are black people in Guatemala? They live on the eastern coast, including in the town of Livingston, and are of Garifuna culture, which also is found in adjacent Honduras.They speak a Native language, since they are essentially an indigenous group with whom so many Africans mixed that the are in appearance "black", though they consider themselves indigenous. I never was around them. The closest I got was Belize, but there people speak English.

 

As to "progressive", I'm talking too much so I'll be brief. I'm tired of hearing all that called "leftist". The LEFT is defined economically, and by the fight for social equality. The term comes from the French Revolution. Today's college dilletants obsessing on pronouns and safe spaces are NOT doing anything that is recognizeably "leftist" to me, but I'm an old 60s radical to whom progressive politics were VERY economically oriented, as well as anti-racist, anti-sexist and environmentalist. But it was all structured around creating an ECONOMICALLY just society, since economic deprivation is at the core of most oppression. is it not? THAT is progressive. Yep.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/24/2022 at 9:05 PM, Michel Montvert said:

Did y'all know that there are black people in Guatemala?

 

Absolutely.

 

On 8/24/2022 at 9:05 PM, Michel Montvert said:

Garifuna culture, which also is found in adjacent Honduras.They speak a Native language, since they are essentially an indigenous group with whom so many Africans mixed that the are in appearance "black", though they consider themselves indigenous

 

Yes, @Michel Montvert My college Jamaican friends and other Caribbean friends have caused me to know this term.

It was many years ago when I studied this term, but I think it connects to the East Indian slave trade and also I know of Black Cubans who are associated with this term.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michel Montvert

 

 

And... the sad fact is that even many legitimate tribal members have plenty of white blood.

 

Exactly, and that's part of the problem.

Not only is it a matter of "identity theft" from Whites with only trace (and sometimes not even that) amounts of Native blood claiming tribal lineage....but even more disturbing it's a matter of self-hatred among Natives who WELCOME nearly White so-called members to represent them and their tribes in political and financial matters; feeling their White phenotype makes them more qualified to be successful.

 

 

 

 

 Then in the 60s Indians became hip and many whites wanted to be them. Some of the shenanigans which went on were extreme. Especially offensive was the habit of hippies who'd spent 2 weeks with some tribe then holding workshops at high prices to teach "Native Spiritual Ways" and so on.

 

True.
I didn't realize this until about 30 years ago.
I still remember the late 70s and seeing Hippies on the streets begging for money, playing guitars, with long hair calling everybody "dude" and "brother"...lol.  But I didn't realize the entire background of the movement until the 90s when the origin was broken down.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have a good perspective on that issue since I did for real live among Native people in Guatemala including studying with a chimán, or priest, but things are not as those hippies taking advantage would have it. One does not learn spiritual ways in a workshop from another white person. This is analogous to the whites presuming to speak politically for Indians. I was told, look, you have learned things. You could perform some of the functions of a chimán here, but you are not Mayan, and so you have no relevance to anyone and nobody would pay you any mind. Also, when you go back among the gringos, you will find that they won't listen to a word you say.

 

On top of that.....
It is my understanding that certain Spirits won't make contact with you UNLESS you are of a certain lineage.  
In this case:  Mayan, Inca, or some other form of Native American.

 

You really should do another thread about some of your experiences with the Shamans down there; I find these subjects very interesting.

 

 

 

 

 

 


The dynamic is not the same at all. In Mexico, the average person, sometimes called a "mestizo", a Spanish speaker, considers themselves to have indigenous roots. is aware that much of their culture is indigenous, and does not see those who retain indigenous language and identity as "the other". "Somos todos mexicanos," one woman told me when I asked her about the ethnic variety in Mexico. And she was light-skinned and did not speak a native language.

 

True.
However among most Mexicans, even though they NOW acknowledge their indigenous ancestry....most of them still consciously and subconsciously "rank" themselves in order of superiority based on the amount of indigenous blood they have...especially as it relates to their phenotype and how it's expressed.

 

In other words...
Among many Meztizos it's ok to claim your ancestry.....as long as you "look" Spanish/White.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P.S. Did y'all know that there are black people in Guatemala? They live on the eastern coast, including in the town of Livingston, and are of Garifuna culture, which also is found in adjacent Honduras.They speak a Native language, since they are essentially an indigenous group with whom so many Africans mixed that the are in appearance "black", 


I can't speak for others but I BEEN knew it...lol.

 

There are indigenous Black populations all up and down the east coast of Latin America.
They have various origins from escaped slaves who joined the Native Americans to Black workers who left the islands to form little work communities along the coasts decades ago....but the majority of "indigenous" Black groups in Latin America are descendants of Africans who had BEEN coming to the Americas CENTURIES before the Europeans even knew it existed settling among the indigenous for trade and various other activities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:


I still remember the late 70s and seeing Hippies on the streets begging for money, playing guitars, with long hair calling everybody "dude" and "brother"...lol.  But I didn't realize the entire background of the movement until the 90s when the origin was broken down.

 

On top of that.....
It is my understanding that certain Spirits won't make contact with you UNLESS you are of a certain lineage.  
In this case:  Mayan, Inca, or some other form of Native American.

 

You really should do another thread about some of your experiences with the Shamans down there; I find these subjects very interesting.

 

True.
However among most Mexicans, even though they NOW acknowledge their indigenous ancestry....most of them still consciously and subconsciously "rank" themselves in order of superiority based on the amount of indigenous blood they have...especially as it relates to their phenotype and how it's expressed.

 

In other words...
Among many Meztizos it's ok to claim your ancestry.....as long as you "look" Spanish/White.

....but the majority of "indigenous" Black groups in Latin America are descendants of Africans who had BEEN coming to the Americas CENTURIES before the Europeans even knew it existed settling among the indigenous for trade and various other activities.

Very interesting things you raise. I could write a book on hippies, as I was among them in the late 60s. It was in part just a fad, a way to be cool, a way to get laid. Many of us were sincere but as I saw it turning to bullshit I left. In fact for decades after that I was mostly around Mexican people, since in California the choice among whites was rednecks, yuppies or hippies and I didn't like any of those 3.

 

The issue of spirits and shamanism also is a long and deep one. I had a spiritual connection with the chimán who taught me, which had begun when I was young. Once when I was 9 yrs old (same year I discovered racism) I had a very intense vision and was then telling everyone that I had to go talk to Mayan people. When I was in Guatemala then, in 1978, the chimán saw me and said, "I knew you were coming, I've been waiting for you." So... ok I'm reluctant to tell much of this because it is not to be spoken of lightly, but that is what happened and obviously there was a reason for it. The effect of that, and of my assimilation of Mexican culture, was, among other things. to increasingly alienate me from my own "white" people in the USA. And it made me tune in to other sources of information and wisdom, and so I began to take very seriously indigenous and traditional voices from Africa, India, and elsewhere.

 

As for Mexicans. you know it depends on the individual. Many are conscious. Many are not. Mexican society is color-coded. to be sure. The average "mestizo" there likely has more Native blood than the average BIA-registered Indian in the USA. And the average common culture in Mexico is very indigenous. I was there in many areas where there were no tourists and out in the country, and one sees this very obviously in the small towns. Keep in mind that people in the USA (gringos) have seen lots of Mexicans and think that Spanish people look like that. In Spain I'd hear USA students expressing amazement that "the people don't look like Mexicans!" They didn't get it. Mexicans are NATIVE, Spanish are WHITE, ok... Mexicans whom gringos think look Spanish often really do not.

 

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 will disagree on the notion of Africans here before Columbus. There is no good evidence for it that any anthropologist recognizes. 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 would indeed not mind talking about shamanism or more importantly, said my teacher, to tell to gringos the facts about the Maya. When I say gringos I include blacks... as I've heard Mexicans use the word like that. Not intending any offense... There are some good Youtubes by chimanes, Mayan priests, talking about the Mayan prophetic view of this current time, and the changes coming. They're all in Spanish, but worth hearing. The Mayan calendar has begun a new cycle, and this is a time of transformation. Humans will make their life on earth a complete living hell, or we'll get our shit together and create a system more SANE than the current one based on exploitation and endless expansion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2022 at 1:05 AM, Michel Montvert said:

Did y'all know that there are black people in Guatemala?

 

Yep,

 

Book Review: Guiou: The Other Blacks, Second Edition

The latter group, known as Garifuna, arrived from Nigeria by way of St. Vincent where they blended with Carib Indians beginning in 1635 before migrating to Guatemala. By contrast, the former group was brought there to work the fields only about a hundred years ago by the United Fruit Company, settling in an area called Colonia.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Troy said:

 

Yep,

 

Book Review: Guiou: The Other Blacks, Second Edition

The latter group, known as Garifuna, arrived from Nigeria by way of St. Vincent where they blended with Carib Indians beginning in 1635 before migrating to Guatemala. By contrast, the former group was brought there to work the fields only about a hundred years ago by the United Fruit Company, settling in an area called Colonia.

Yes, their language is Carib.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Michel Montvert said:

since in California the choice among whites was rednecks, yuppies or hippies and I didn't like any of those 3.

 

lol

 

17 hours ago, Michel Montvert said:

I will disagree on the notion of Africans here before Columbus. There is no good evidence for it that any anthropologist recognizes. Van Sertima was academically a farce.

 

My husband is Native American and he is 'a Negro'.

And, I definitely have Native ancestry that goes way back before Columbus.

 

I don't understand how you can mention the Mayans and not see any connection with Africa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Chevdove said:

 

lol

 

 

My husband is Native American and he is 'a Negro'.

And, I definitely have Native ancestry that goes way back before Columbus.

 

I don't understand how you can mention the Mayans and not see any connection with Africa.

Native ancestry of course was all here before Columbus, obviously. African was not, nor European. nor Chinese. nor anyone else, despite all the claims for all of those. I lived among the Maya. They do not look at all African. And their culture is entirely indigenous. NO real anthropologists have seen any legitimate evidence for pre-Columbian contact.

 

The Lagoa Santa fossils were analyzed genetically and found to be entirely of Native American types. No Australians. no Africans. Kennewick also was analyzed morphologically and found to be Native, not European as many claimed. If anyone from another continent had been here there would be something from the following list:

1. evidence of boats

2. outside DNA among Natives

3. crops from elsewhere

4. cultural artifacts from elsewhere

 

NONE of that is found anywhere. Any claims for such are easily debunked as they are imaginary, such as those often cited, von Wuthenau and so on, very old as well as providing NO reliable evidence for any visitations.

 

Keep in mind that those claiming Africans were here also claim that the Hebrews, the Dravidians, the Chinese, the original Europeans, and lots of other people are "really" African, or originally African. In every case there is no evidence for it.

 

The great things done by Africans are to be found amply in Africa. To claim Greece, India, Olmecs, Chinese, etc., is just not real academics, real science. or anything real.

 

And the white racists trying to claim that European Solutreans were in America... equally 100% false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michel Montvert said:

Native ancestry of course was all here before Columbus, obviously. African was not,

 

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.

 

The Mayans you see today do not reflect the genocide of the Mayans when the White Europeans came.

I have visited the museums in Duke University and also the Fine Art museum near NC State university and WOW, the original Mayans are mindblowing.

They express many different traits and colors but the dominant presence of black/bronze and very black skinned is the major theme. 

 

Oh, and you spoke against the late Ivan Van Sertima, but he is by far not the only historian that shares a lot of information on the early African presence in the Americas.

 

I love the documentary by Kevin Cosner of '500 Nations' and in this is presented a lot of 'African-typed' deep dark skinned Native Americans in Alabama, Georgia, etc.

About 30 years ago, I read a book 'The Morning Star' [?] and the Native American author wrote about how the Europeans killed off about 90% of the Indians in the 13 colonies and the residue they attempted to ship to the Carribeans withing a 10 year timespan. This was all done before 'the Manifest Destiny'.

 

I've done a lot of research on the dominant African presence that defines the indigenous native peoples of the Ancient Americas. 

Oh yes, and the early Chinese presence too, has some fascinating history here as well.

 

 

 

Edited by Chevdove
sentence structure
Link to comment
Share on other sites


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?

 

Up to date, 17 Olmec colossal stone heads have been found throughout the  shoreline on the Gulf of Mexico. All of them with different facial  features. - Awesome | Ancient mexico, Mexico, History images

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

Up to date, 17 Olmec colossal stone heads have been found throughout the  shoreline on the Gulf of Mexico. All of them with different facial  features. - Awesome | Ancient mexico, Mexico, History images

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.........


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/1/2022 at 6:15 PM, Michel Montvert said:

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.

 

 

@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.

 

 

On 9/1/2022 at 6:15 PM, Michel Montvert said:

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

 

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.

 

On 9/1/2022 at 6:15 PM, Michel Montvert said:

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.

 

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.

 

On 9/1/2022 at 6:15 PM, Michel Montvert said:

But... there is no history which shows Africans in America! Nor Chinese! We need solid evidence. DNA, human remains. cultural traits, crops... something!

 

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!!! 

 

On 9/1/2022 at 6:15 PM, Michel Montvert said:

They also were analyzed and are 100% Native American.

 

Then they would not have any haplo-groups. They'd be intersexed.

 

On 9/1/2022 at 6:15 PM, Michel Montvert said:

There are many Youtube videos, notably by a guy named de Montellano, which debunk all of this easily.

 

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. 

 

On 9/1/2022 at 6:15 PM, Michel Montvert said:

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.

 

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember reading or hearing somewhere about 4 or 5 years ago that Greek(?) scientists had discovered humanoid remains in their country that were as old as or older than Lucy and had different DNA from hers.  Was this ever disputed or proven?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cynique said:

I remember reading or hearing somewhere about 4 or 5 years ago that Greek(?) scientists had discovered humanoid remains in their country that were as old as or older than Lucy and had different DNA from hers.  Was this ever disputed or proven?  

 

@Cynique

I have not read about it but, I would be interested to know. When I visited the Smithsonian, I did see Lucy in the exhibit but it was a few years ago. So, if this find is valid, it will probably be information that will be added. The mtDNA research is more complex than the male haplogroups because the Y-DNA can be traced with 99.99 percent accuracy from father to son. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Michel Montvert said:

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?

 

@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.

http://haplotree.info/about/

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

*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.

https://learnalittleeveryday.wordpress.com/2017/12/11/ydna-whole-chromomsome-testing-the-whats-and-whys-of-familytreednas-bigy-test/

 

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

*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. 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

livingdna-haplogtree.png

 

 

livingdna-haplogroup-origins-map.png

 

 

 

World-Migration-Map.jpg

 

 

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

 

 

AS YOU CAN SEE, ALL OF THE HAPLOGROUPS YOU MENTIONED ARE 

 

OUT OF AFRICA!!!

 

lol.

Edited by Chevdove
spacing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

http://haplotree.info/about/

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

*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.

https://learnalittleeveryday.wordpress.com/2017/12/11/ydna-whole-chromomsome-testing-the-whats-and-whys-of-familytreednas-bigy-test/

 

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

*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. 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

livingdna-haplogtree.png

 

 

livingdna-haplogroup-origins-map.png

 

 

 

World-Migration-Map.jpg

 

 

 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Michel Montvert said:

Obviously neandertals and other hominins also had Y-DNA.

 

Yes, I agree.

1 minute ago, Michel Montvert said:

 

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.

 

again, I believe you but the African Mayans were massacred. 

1 minute ago, Michel Montvert said:

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.

 

I agree.

2 minutes ago, Michel Montvert said:

 

It is an insult to Native people and their cultures to claim they're all replacements for someone else... really not acceptable.

 

No, it's an insult that you completely disregard me in that I told you I have Native American ancestry and so does my husband.

Also, my son had a ancestry test--YES!!! lol.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
 

 

10 Interesting Facts On The Ancient Olmec Civilization | Learnodo Newtonic

 

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.

 

 

Olmec Civilization - World History Encyclopedia

 

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.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
 

 

10 Interesting Facts On The Ancient Olmec Civilization | Learnodo Newtonic

 

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.

 

 

Olmec Civilization - World History Encyclopedia

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Michel Montvert said:

 

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.

 

@Michel Montvert

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Chevdove said:

 

@Michel Montvert

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Michel Montvert said:

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.

 

@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.

 

16 minutes ago, Michel Montvert said:

Science is not tied to "race",

 

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!

 

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, Michel Montvert said:

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!

 

That's bullshit

 

I hope to present research about the White movement in ancient times.

 

23 minutes ago, Michel Montvert said:

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?

 

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.

 

 

27 minutes ago, Michel Montvert said:

The caves of the Caucasus and all that nonsense. Racist garbage. The Indoeuropeans were from the steppes. There aren't many caves there...

 

LOL! I agree with you on this one.

That, imo is racist garbage.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...