Comments
13,621 - 13,640 of 24,100 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago
trollslayer

Munster, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14577
Mar 29, 2013
 
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
No they didn't 'keep' those physical traits. They EVOLVED those physical traits because they lived in similar tropical like enviroments. Their genetics show they aren't African.
That's b.s. there are various African phenotypes that don't change to much when they leave Africa...provided they don't mix with others.
Read Dr. Diop.
trollslayer

Munster, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14578
Mar 29, 2013
 
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm going to keep repeating em since you keep having problems understanding that the Afrocentric beliefs you hold are derived from idiots like Temple.
"In 1976 Robert Temple published the Sirius Mystery claiming that the extraordinary astronomical knowledge of the Egyptians and the Dogon of Mali(1) was due to visitations from inhabitants of the Sirius system. These claims were dealt with in a article in The Skeptical Inquirer (Ridpath 1978). Since that time, however, the Afrocentrist movement has revived and expanded these claims (Adams 1983a; 1983b; 1990; Van Sertima 1983; Ortiz de Montellano 1991), and they have been naively parroted in more mainline publications (Gebre-Egziabher 1993/1994; Harding 1991). Adams (1990: 60) briefly presents the current claims"
http://www.ramtops.co.uk/dogon.html
I don't believe in temple. no go to 681 and read what Van Sertima has to say.
trollslayer

Munster, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14579
Mar 29, 2013
 
big mike M wrote:
<quoted text>
That doesn't say anything or hold any weight. Those 'blacks' of Eurasia only descend from THOSE Africans that left Africa, not MODERN Africans. Those 'blacks' outside of Africa are genetically distant from Modern day Africans. Phenotypes does not correlate with genotypes. I don't understand why some people don't have a hard time understanding this.
Also by saying those 'black' people outside of Africa are African, you're basically sounding like those Eurocentrics who claimed everyone with Caucasoid features so they can claim almost every civilization. People like North/East Africans, Indians, Middle Easterners,etc for 200 years...
Trollslayer I like and all, but your argument for why the Olmecs were African sounds JUST LIKE when the Eurocentrics were claiming everyone with Caucasoid features. I think you should stop. Eurocentrics also claimed New World civilizations like the Olmecs.-__-
What do you mean "Caucasoid features"??? Whites are not a base group of PPL. nobody originates from Caucasians. All I want is the truth without cover-up.
trollslayer

Munster, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14580
Mar 29, 2013
 
big mike M wrote:
<quoted text>
***"Trollslayer I like you and all."
^^^Grammar correction.
I like some of the things I see from you too. I would say with regard to the Olmecs(Xi PPL.) keep studying and looking for all you can on them. There are lots of questions surrounding them that have been posed by a variety of PPL. regardless of race.
Ilmu Batin

Paris, France

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14581
Mar 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You have c rap and know even less, Afrocentric fool. Native Americans weren't black and they were not 'Africans'. Deal with it and stop raping their identity, culture and history like them Eurocentric nuts you keep harping about because you just expose yourself to being an Afrocentric nut.
Effing liar, first I said in my previous post that he refuted Van Sertima's theory yet he acknowledges that some Native Americans were described by the Spaniards as MORENOS and PRIETOS ( ask to a Cuban, Dominican or a PR what these words mean). Jack D Forbes said that native Indians could be of all shades of color : white, Moreno ( brown skinned) or Prietos ( near black or black skinned) like the Otomacos. Google will not help you , page 121 to 123....

Fitzgerald's book about Native Indians women show the same, and I selected the dark skinned elements, in the links I posted

“DANGER!!”

Level 8

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14582
Mar 30, 2013
 
Ilmu Batin wrote:
<quoted text>
Effing liar, first I said in my previous post that he refuted Van Sertima's theory yet he acknowledges that some Native Americans were described by the Spaniards as MORENOS and PRIETOS ( ask to a Cuban, Dominican or a PR what these words mean). Jack D Forbes said that native Indians could be of all shades of color : white, Moreno ( brown skinned) or Prietos ( near black or black skinned) like the Otomacos. Google will not help you , page 121 to 123....
Fitzgerald's book about Native Indians women show the same, and I selected the dark skinned elements, in the links I posted
...and you ÍDIOTS, like YOU, have been told more than a thousand times over that neither "moreno" nor "prieto" means Negro or 'Black'.

Negros who are Cuban, Dominican or a PR are the ones who would be used to 'thinking' that either of those words means 'Black' or Negro since the people on those islands are either Negro, Mulato, or Caucasian, but that's ONLY because those words are used EUPHEMISTICALLY.

I'm sure that the only Cuban, Dominican or a PR that YOU ever speak to is Negro or Mulato, and I'm dámned sure they don't keep 'the-Kings-Spanish'.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT "EUPHEMISTICALLY" means???

"eu·phe·mism
[yoo-fuh-miz-uhm]
noun
1.
the substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression for one thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt."

[also]

"euphemism
— n
1.
an inoffensive word or phrase substituted for one considered offensive or hurtful, esp one concerned with religion, sex, death, or excreta. Examples of euphemisms are sleep with for have sexual intercourse with; departed for dead; relieve oneself for urinate"

•••
Truthfully, "Moreno" only means brown, swarthy, or tan and is a reference to skin tone ONLY, NOT properly used as a genetic reference.
•••

"moreno , a
A.- adjective
1.[persona]
(=de pelo moreno) dark-haired
(=de tez morena) dark(-skinned), swarthy
(=bronceado) brown , tanned euphemism coloured , colored United States
(Andes, Caribe) mulatto
·ponerse moreno
·to tan , go brown
2.[pelo](dark) brown [azúcar, pan] brown
B.- noun masculine/feminine
a.[de pelo] dark-haired man/woman
b.[de tez] dark(-skinned) man/woman
·una morena
·a brunette
C.- noun masculine tan"

•••
...did you NOT notice the word euphemism and how it's used in the definition???
•••

"prieto
A.- adjective
1.(=apretado) tight
·no hagas el nudo tan prieto
·don't tie the knot so tight
·de carnes prietas
·firm-bodied
·un siglo prieto de historia
·a century packed full of history , a century rich in history
2.(=oscuro) blackish , dark
(especially Mexicoéx) dark , swarthy"

•••
...again, "prieto" is NOT a color but is merely a reference to shading and has been used in reference to shades ranging from "TAN" to "BLACKISH" but NOT 'Black'.
•••

“Try harder :)”

Level 8

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14584
Mar 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

trollslayer wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you mean "Caucasoid features"??? Whites are not a base group of PPL. nobody originates from Caucasians. All I want is the truth without cover-up.
-__-

Aye...You seemed to have missed the point of my post. I said whites/Europeans invented and used terms such as 'Caucasoid' to claim many civilizations where the people had those supposed 'Caucasoid' features. They even made many sub groups and what not, where Indians were included in it and so were East Africans like Ethiopians. All for Europeans to take credit for things they did not do.

The main point if my post to you was that YOU'RE doing the same thing those Eurocentrics were doing. By saying those indigenous 'black' Eurasians are of African descent, you sound like those Eurocentrics who claimed anyone with Caucasoid features. Both you and the Eurocentric's go solely by Phenotypes or the physical appearance to determine what groups certain people belong to.

“Try harder :)”

Level 8

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14586
Mar 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

trollslayer wrote:
<quoted text>
I like some of the things I see from you too. I would say with regard to the Olmecs(Xi PPL.) keep studying and looking for all you can on them. There are lots of questions surrounding them that have been posed by a variety of PPL. regardless of race.
I just want to point this out. And I do not mean to take shots at Clyde Winters or Ivan van Sertima. Thing about both men and the reasons they can't or were never able to prove that the olmecs were black is because both have NEVER been on the front line doing REAL archaeological.

When have you seen Winters or Sertima ACTUALLY go to these Olmec sites and do archaeological stuff? They mostly publishes books or articles, but are never on the front line. The thing about Eurocentrics is that they are actually are on the front line. Zahi Hawass has done many archaeological finds for Egypt. The only black person I can think of that was on the 'front line' was Ashra Kwesi.

Neither Winters if Sertima has done archaeological work on the Olmecs, which is why they have not really proven the Olmecs were African.

Again not taking shots at those two men. Just ranting.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14588
Mar 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

big mike M wrote:
<quoted text>
I just want to point this out. And I do not mean to take shots at Clyde Winters or Ivan van Sertima. Thing about both men and the reasons they can't or were never able to prove that the olmecs were black is because both have NEVER been on the front line doing REAL archaeological.
No, the reason why neither of them, especially that fool Clyde Winters, can't prove that Olmecs were of African descent, or even had contacts with peoples of African descent, is because neither of them have a such thing as EVIDENCE!!!

I ask for archaeologists and anthropologists because I know they hold more credibility that random book authors, and are required, if they are to recieve respect in their respective fields, to perform honest work that is BACKED by material evidence.

Winters and Sertima are not scientists and are, therefore, not held by the same expectations. They fill their pockets with stupid (Black) peoples' money because stupid (Black) people are to ignorant and witless to demand real substantiation.

They don't require absolute proof. They just require that you tell them a good story; one they want to believe, and then they'll buy into it. The reason why you don't see Afro-Brazilians or Africans being as fanatic about afrocentric nonsense is because they have a culture that they are proud of and are not seeking to adopt or steal another's.

AA's on the other hand, have a severe, inherent inferiority complex, so they are much more septible to such lunacy.

Because of that, there is an established market for afrocentrism, and so the capitalists (the afrocentrists) have a place to set up shop.

I mean why is it that more people know about Hidden Colors or They Came Before Columbus than they do about Davidson's Africa In History or Adu Boahen's The Horizon History of Africa?

Because the former two are much more appealing and appeasing to the low self esteem Black than the latter two, despite the fact that the latter contain much more, and much more useful and honest, information about Black African history than the former.

Eye candy over substance.

It just goes to show just how superficial Black people have gotten, where the main people who are actually interested in their history are only interested in fanciful accounts of it, because the genuine accounts are ignored, as a result of not being apart of the eurocentric view of what comprise of "real" or noteworthy civilizations.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14590
Mar 30, 2013
 
big mike M wrote:
When have you seen Winters or Sertima ACTUALLY go to these Olmec sites and do archaeological stuff? They mostly publishes books or articles, but are never on the front line. The thing about Eurocentrics is that they are actually are on the front line. Zahi Hawass has done many archaeological finds for Egypt. The only black person I can think of that was on the 'front line' was Ashra Kwesi.
And one more thing:

Ashra Kwesi is not "on the front line" of anything.

What he is is just another afrocentrist, as deluded as all the other afrocentrists, who gets paid to give lectures and tours, as well as sell books. He isn't a scientist in even the remotest sense, and does no "front line" work on anything except selling more afrocentrism nonsense. He doesn't, from what I've seen, focus on tales of African Olmecs, but he does seem to be under the illusion that AA's, and I'm guessing other Diasporans, come from Egypt and have Egyptian ancestors, as that is what I have heard him refer to them as.

Not only is this notion a blatant lie, and completely ridiculous, it is a huge slight and disrespect to our TRUE West African ancestry.

This fool gives tours in Egypt and, now, Ethiopia.

But NONE on West Africa? We have nothing to do with Egypt, and Ethiopia is just a possible home to some distant ancestry, which completely by-passes and has nothing to do with Ethiopian civilizations.

Here's some words from his website:

"Ashra Kwesi and Merira Kwesi are lecturers on African history, civilization, religion and culture. They
present lively and dynamic slide presentation productions and videos based on their extensive study
and travel on the African continent. Their startling and revealing information on the African origin of
many of the concepts and symbols now utilized by the western world is due to their focus on the ancient
African Nile Valley.

These national and international lecturers also conduct the Kemet Nu "Know Thyself" Educational
Tours to Egypt and Ethiopia. Brother and Sister Kwesi link the historical with the present in order to
bring "our story" to life."

http://www.kemetnu.com/

"Our story"? What the f9ck does Egypt have to do with "our" story when we all came from the complete opposite side of Africa?

What they should do is just be honest and supplant "Africa" and "African" with "Egypt" and "Egyptian" because that is all they really are concerned about. I would have a lot more respect for these obsessive fools if they were just honest and stopped trying to pretend that they are actually interested in Africa when they could give a sh9t.

No, Hausa. No Mossi. No Xhosa. No Luba. No Buganda. Too uninteresting.

“Try harder :)”

Level 8

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14591
Mar 30, 2013
 
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the reason why neither of them, especially that fool Clyde Winters, can't prove that Olmecs were of African descent, or even had contacts with peoples of African descent, is because neither of them have a such thing as EVIDENCE!!!
I ask for archaeologists and anthropologists because I know they hold more credibility that random book authors, and are required, if they are to recieve respect in their respective fields, to perform honest work that is BACKED by material evidence.
Winters and Sertima are not scientists and are, therefore, not held by the same expectations. They fill their pockets with stupid (Black) peoples' money because stupid (Black) people are to ignorant and witless to demand real substantiation.
They don't require absolute proof. They just require that you tell them a good story; one they want to believe, and then they'll buy into it. The reason why you don't see Afro-Brazilians or Africans being as fanatic about afrocentric nonsense is because they have a culture that they are proud of and are not seeking to adopt or steal another's.
AA's on the other hand, have a severe, inherent inferiority complex, so they are much more septible to such lunacy.
Because of that, there is an established market for afrocentrism, and so the capitalists (the afrocentrists) have a place to set up shop.
I mean why is it that more people know about Hidden Colors or They Came Before Columbus than they do about Davidson's Africa In History or Adu Boahen's The Horizon History of Africa?
Because the former two are much more appealing and appeasing to the low self esteem Black than the latter two, despite the fact that the latter contain much more, and much more useful and honest, information about Black African history than the former.
Eye candy over substance.
It just goes to show just how superficial Black people have gotten, where the main people who are actually interested in their history are only interested in fanciful accounts of it, because the genuine accounts are ignored, as a result of not being apart of the eurocentric view of what comprise of "real" or noteworthy civilizations.
I agree 100% with this post. Everything was on point. You know there are some black people in America who thinks Timbuktu is not real?

Also African is called the dark continent because people barely know anything about it. People barely know anything about it because they don't take the time to fully learn about anything from. West African archaeology is on the RISE.

Instead of worrying about the stupid Olmecs...Winters should be helping those Africans in West Africa with West African archaeology...We are starting to know more and more of African.

“Try harder :)”

Level 8

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14592
Mar 30, 2013
 
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
And one more thing:
Ashra Kwesi is not "on the front line" of anything.
What he is is just another afrocentrist, as deluded as all the other afrocentrists, who gets paid to give lectures and tours, as well as sell books. He isn't a scientist in even the remotest sense, and does no "front line" work on anything except selling more afrocentrism nonsense. He doesn't, from what I've seen, focus on tales of African Olmecs, but he does seem to be under the illusion that AA's, and I'm guessing other Diasporans, come from Egypt and have Egyptian ancestors, as that is what I have heard him refer to them as.
Not only is this notion a blatant lie, and completely ridiculous, it is a huge slight and disrespect to our TRUE West African ancestry.
This fool gives tours in Egypt and, now, Ethiopia.
But NONE on West Africa? We have nothing to do with Egypt, and Ethiopia is just a possible home to some distant ancestry, which completely by-passes and has nothing to do with Ethiopian civilizations.
Here's some words from his website:
"Ashra Kwesi and Merira Kwesi are lecturers on African history, civilization, religion and culture. They
present lively and dynamic slide presentation productions and videos based on their extensive study
and travel on the African continent. Their startling and revealing information on the African origin of
many of the concepts and symbols now utilized by the western world is due to their focus on the ancient
African Nile Valley.
These national and international lecturers also conduct the Kemet Nu "Know Thyself" Educational
Tours to Egypt and Ethiopia. Brother and Sister Kwesi link the historical with the present in order to
bring "our story" to life."
http://www.kemetnu.com/
"Our story"? What the f9ck does Egypt have to do with "our" story when we all came from the complete opposite side of Africa?
What they should do is just be honest and supplant "Africa" and "African" with "Egypt" and "Egyptian" because that is all they really are concerned about. I would have a lot more respect for these obsessive fools if they were just honest and stopped trying to pretend that they are actually interested in Africa when they could give a sh9t.
No, Hausa. No Mossi. No Xhosa. No Luba. No Buganda. Too uninteresting.
I actually liked his work on early African martial arts. He has stated that Ethiopia is the mother of Ancient Egypt(As in the Egyptians coming from their) and the Congo is the grandmother of Ancient Egypt. I think that what he is trying to say. And when he meant 'our story', he meant all of Africans story in general.

I know you are going to disagree with this, but the reason why people like Ashra Kwesi and others mostly focus on Ancient Egypt is not because Ancient Egypt was Africa's ONLY civilization or other African civilizations are inferior. But because AE has been under Eurocentric control for since for every. People like Ashra Kwesi,Diop, Keita and even Egyptian egyptologist themselves try to place AE a part of African history. Because for so long AE has not been a part of African history. They are not necessary claiming they are descendants of the Ancient Egyptian.

When I am debating about the Ancient Egyptians. It is not because I think other African civilizations are inferior, but because we already KNOW they were African civilizations. And also I am well versed on the Ancient Egyptian topic. With AE the battle has went for a long time. Yes I agree the AE has overshadowed other African civilizations, but I do not think people like Ashra intended on doing that.

But it seems the battle for Ancient Egypt is ending. Since Ancient Egypt being African is now being accepted in mainstream academia(though still not accepted in the media). Now it appears the afrocentrics are moving on from AE and to the Olmecs. The Olmecs are now the 'new' Ancient Egypt for them.
trollslayer

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14593
Mar 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

big mike M wrote:
<quoted text>
-__-
Aye...You seemed to have missed the point of my post. I said whites/Europeans invented and used terms such as 'Caucasoid' to claim many civilizations where the people had those supposed 'Caucasoid' features. They even made many sub groups and what not, where Indians were included in it and so were East Africans like Ethiopians. All for Europeans to take credit for things they did not do.
The main point if my post to you was that YOU'RE doing the same thing those Eurocentrics were doing. By saying those indigenous 'black' Eurasians are of African descent, you sound like those Eurocentrics who claimed anyone with Caucasoid features. Both you and the Eurocentric's go solely by Phenotypes or the physical appearance to determine what groups certain people belong to.
Look at it this way, since Blacks were the 1st to roam the earth, I'm closer to right than euros. So I don't think I sound like "them". On DNA & genetics question...it's all been proven to be not as accurate as one might think. They can't even get the your or my
genealogy test correct.

The Bogus-ness of DNA Testing for Genealogy Research
http://rebeccaskloot.blogspot.com/2006/06/bog...
trollslayer

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14594
Mar 30, 2013
 
big mike M wrote:
<quoted text>
I just want to point this out. And I do not mean to take shots at Clyde Winters or Ivan van Sertima. Thing about both men and the reasons they can't or were never able to prove that the olmecs were black is because both have NEVER been on the front line doing REAL archaeological.
When have you seen Winters or Sertima ACTUALLY go to these Olmec sites and do archaeological stuff? They mostly publishes books or articles, but are never on the front line. The thing about Eurocentrics is that they are actually are on the front line. Zahi Hawass has done many archaeological finds for Egypt. The only black person I can think of that was on the 'front line' was Ashra Kwesi.
Neither Winters if Sertima has done archaeological work on the Olmecs, which is why they have not really proven the Olmecs were African.
Again not taking shots at those two men. Just ranting.
No problem....more Africans should be out there on "the front lines" maybe we'd get a more accurate picture of whats really happening.

You mentioned Zahi Hawass. IDK how much you know
about him, but he's one of the biggest Arabcentric liars out there. For the longest, he has said AE were NOT black. Plus, for years he kept various archeologist out of Egypt, cuz of the position he once held. He could pick and choose who could came and study the old artifacts. He may have changed his tune lately.

You mention Clyde Winters or Ivan van Sertima. The thing about them is they do bring footnotes & references for a person to cross reference. They aren't the only ones out there talking about PPL. of African descent in the Americas b4 columbus. Hispanics, Blacks, Germans and various other ethnic groups / scholars over time have been pointing to a African presence in the Americas.
trollslayer

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14596
Mar 30, 2013
 
big mike M wrote:
<quoted text>
I actually liked his work on early African martial arts. He has stated that Ethiopia is the mother of Ancient Egypt(As in the Egyptians coming from their) and the Congo is the grandmother of Ancient Egypt. I think that what he is trying to say. And when he meant 'our story', he meant all of Africans story in general.
I know you are going to disagree with this, but the reason why people like Ashra Kwesi and others mostly focus on Ancient Egypt is not because Ancient Egypt was Africa's ONLY civilization or other African civilizations are inferior. But because AE has been under Eurocentric control for since for every. People like Ashra Kwesi,Diop, Keita and even Egyptian egyptologist themselves try to place AE a part of African history. Because for so long AE has not been a part of African history. They are not necessary claiming they are descendants of the Ancient Egyptian.
When I am debating about the Ancient Egyptians. It is not because I think other African civilizations are inferior, but because we already KNOW they were African civilizations. And also I am well versed on the Ancient Egyptian topic. With AE the battle has went for a long time. Yes I agree the AE has overshadowed other African civilizations, but I do not think people like Ashra intended on doing that.
But it seems the battle for Ancient Egypt is ending. Since Ancient Egypt being African is now being accepted in mainstream academia(though still not accepted in the media). Now it appears the afrocentrics are moving on from AE and to the Olmecs. The Olmecs are now the 'new' Ancient Egypt for them.
Your points are both well taken & articulated. LOL...you say Olmecs are the "new Egypt"....well I'd like to see who they cast as Olmecs if the media / Hollywood ever does a movie on them. I mean there's no way to get around the African features.
_____

What I find interesting is the huge disapproval by certain factions
when it comes to Africans (I use this collectively) wanting to explore all African contributions to the world. No doubt more Africans are needed in both genetic and archeological studies. Only getting the euro perspective is not acceptable.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14597
Mar 30, 2013
 
big mike M wrote:
<quoted text>
I actually liked his work on early African martial arts. He has stated that Ethiopia is the mother of Ancient Egypt(As in the Egyptians coming from their) and the Congo is the grandmother of Ancient Egypt.


Just more afrocentrist garbage coming from him.

Ethiopia's relationship with Egypt, regarding ancestry, is the same as it's relationship with the rest of the continent, in that all of them ultimately came from there, but no civilization outside of the Horn can be credited to Ethiopians. So no, Ethiopia is not the "mother" of Egypt, and the Congo is definitely not the "grandmother".

Even if it was, you still wouldn't see Kwesi giving equal focus to it. Afrocentrists say that Egypt came from Nubia but then go right back to obsessing over Egypt. Well if it all came from Nubia then shouldn't Nubia get all the attention? They only do that and say that in order to try and solidify Egypt's "Blackness".
big mike M wrote:
I think that what he is trying to say. And when he meant 'our story', he meant all of Africans story in general.


Most Africans have nothing to do with Egypt, certainly not Ancient Egypt, so it's still nonsense and ridiculous.
big mike M wrote:
I know you are going to disagree with this, but the reason why people like Ashra Kwesi and others mostly focus on Ancient Egypt is not because Ancient Egypt was Africa's ONLY civilization or other African civilizations are inferior. But because AE has been under Eurocentric control for since for every. People like Ashra Kwesi,Diop, Keita and even Egyptian egyptologist themselves try to place AE a part of African history. Because for so long AE has not been a part of African history. They are not necessary claiming they are descendants of the Ancient Egyptian.


Actually that's exactly what they are doing. I've heard these afrocentrists literally refer to Egyptians as "our ancestors", when they are not and never have been.

Egypt is "accepted" by Eurocentrism as being a legitimate African civilization, and the only or main one that contributed to world civilization, and that is why Afrocentrists obsess over it. The Moors are said to have influenced Europe and, according to some of these fools, to have "civilized" Europe. Well if it has to do with influencing Europe, then it must be important, which means it's time for Blacks to try and lay claim to it.

Blacks were Egyptians--who Europeans accept as a genuine African civilization and who, supposedly, influenced Europe (link to Europe)

Blacks were Moors--who supposedly "civilized Europeans" (link to Europe)

Blacks were "all over the world"--before Europeans (link to Europe)

Blacks were Olmec--and therefore "discovered America before Europeans" (link to Europe)

Do you detect a pattern here?

Why are AA's more concerned "defending" Egypt than Egyptians? And why does defending the Blackness of Egypt or the Moors matter more than defending and honoring the achievements of West Africans, and I don't just mean Timbuktu or Mali and Songhai either?
big mike M wrote:
When I am debating about the Ancient Egyptians. It is not because I think other African civilizations are inferior, but because we already KNOW they were African civilizations. And also I am well versed on the Ancient Egyptian topic.


I don't even bother debating about Egypt anymore. I'm not interested in Egypt, nor am I interested in defending their ancient color.
big mike M wrote:
With AE the battle has went for a long time. Yes I agree the AE has overshadowed other African civilizations, but I do not think people like Ashra intended on doing that.


Whether that is what he intended or not is immaterial. That is what he did and is doing, and if you brought that to his attention, that is what he would continue to do.

“DANGER!!”

Level 8

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14598
Mar 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

big mike M wrote:
<quoted text>
-__-
Aye...You seemed to have missed the point of my post. I said whites/Europeans invented and used terms such as 'Caucasoid' to claim many civilizations where the people had those supposed 'Caucasoid' features. They even made many sub groups and what not, where Indians were included in it and so were East Africans like Ethiopians. All for Europeans to take credit for things they did not do.
The main point if my post to you was that YOU'RE doing the same thing those Eurocentrics were doing. By saying those indigenous 'black' Eurasians are of African descent, you sound like those Eurocentrics who claimed anyone with Caucasoid features. Both you and the Eurocentric's go solely by Phenotypes or the physical appearance to determine what groups certain people belong to.
You're very confused,

but that is just a nice way of pointing out that you are FULL OF SHÍT.

No one is "claiming" anything except very confused individuals like you Afro-Centrist slack-wits.

No one is saying that Ethiopians are entirely Caucasian and what you don't seem to understand is that NOT ALL Ethiopians are part Negroïd.

Strictly speaking, the 'E-M78'Y-Hg is NOT a Negroïd Haplogroup,

and the same can be said for the 'L3'mtDNA Haplogroup.

Of course, no one is saying that all the subclades of 'E-M78'Y-Hg are Caucasian either, except for 'E-V13'Y-Hg.

What HAS been stated by anthropologists, is that the 'E-M78'Y-Hg is less distanced from Caucasian Haplogroups than it is from all Negroïd 'E'Y-Hg subclades.

•••

No legitimate anthropologist believes that all Indians from the sub-continent of India are Caucasian either.

The thee major genetic groups of India are Mongoloid, Australoid, and Caucasoid.

Please point out the legitimate anthropologist that differs greatly from that opinion.

If anyone is using "phenotypes" it's YOU.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14599
Mar 30, 2013
 
trollslayer wrote:
You mention Clyde Winters or Ivan van Sertima. The thing about them is they do bring footnotes & references for a person to cross reference. They aren't the only ones out there talking about PPL. of African descent in the Americas b4 columbus. Hispanics, Blacks, Germans and various other ethnic groups / scholars over time have been pointing to a African presence in the Americas.
Sertima and Winters follow the same lame pattern all afrocentrists follow, which is using already debunked and dismissed sources, misconstruing the meaning of sources, or outright lying about what a particular source says or means, while ignoring and never addressing the countless counter (and up to date) evidence.

Like trying to use Olmec Heads as evidence for African presence while not even attempting to explain Olmec figurine art looking nothing like African figurine art, there not being any formative stages of Olmec civilization in Africa, or there not being any Olmec Heads in Africa.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14600
Mar 30, 2013
 
Curious Me wrote:
You're very confused,
but that is just a nice way of pointing out that you are FULL OF SHÍT.
No one is "claiming" anything except very confused individuals like you Afro-Centrist slack-wits.
No one is saying that Ethiopians are entirely Caucasian and what you don't seem to understand is that NOT ALL Ethiopians are part Negroïd.
Strictly speaking, the 'E-M78'Y-Hg is NOT a Negroïd Haplogroup,
and the same can be said for the 'L3'mtDNA Haplogroup.
Of course, no one is saying that all the subclades of 'E-M78'Y-Hg are Caucasian either, except for 'E-V13'Y-Hg.
What HAS been stated by anthropologists, is that the 'E-M78'Y-Hg is less distanced from Caucasian Haplogroups than it is from all Negroïd 'E'Y-Hg subclades.
No, you seem to be very confused, as there is no f8cking such thing as a so called "Negr@id" Haplogroup.

L3 came from Sub Saharan Africa and EM78 emerged in the region of Northern Africa that would have had much Black presence as it is most likely to have originated in or near the Upper Egypt and northern Sudan region.

In any case, your argument stinks.
trollslayer

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14601
Mar 30, 2013
 
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
Sertima and Winters follow the same lame pattern all afrocentrists follow, which is using already debunked and dismissed sources, misconstruing the meaning of sources, or outright lying about what a particular source says or means, while ignoring and never addressing the countless counter (and up to date) evidence.
Like trying to use Olmec Heads as evidence for African presence while not even attempting to explain Olmec figurine art looking nothing like African figurine art, there not being any formative stages of Olmec civilization in Africa, or there not being any Olmec Heads in Africa.
There's enough information both ways on who and what the Olmec Xi PPL. were and were not. True there's all types of figurine art, which I accept. There's also figurine art that shows clearly African depictions. The African heads can not be discounted as being "native"...I've looked and looked, I still can't find "natives" who look like Olmecs. I read Coe and I am quite disappointed why he can't or won't explain the heads.

Bottom line, the PPL. most important thing PPL. can do is to nver take one or 2 sources on anything. PPL. must review study many sources and come to their own truth and conclusions....regardless of what others think or say.
____

Side note...so-called mainstream scholars have lied about so much that no one can believe them or their "findings".

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••