the moors were black africans not ara...

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#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

#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".

“Try harder :)”

Level 8

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#14602 Mar 30, 2013
trollslayer wrote:
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".
Black is only a skin color...Everyone who lives in the tropics would have 'black' skin.
http://i1050.photobucket.com/albums/s417/King...
^^^Those Andaman people are 'black' but are they related to Africans? No...I already told you that those black Eurasians are only descents of those who left Africa and NOT MODERN AFRICANS. They are distant. Again Phenotypes don't correlate with genotypes. This has nothing to do with Eurocentrics saying they are not African, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT AFRICAN.
trollslayer wrote:
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...
This doesn't prove anything...ALL DNA test on 'black' Eurasians tell us that they are genetically distant from Africans and it is a FACT. I think you are trying hard to dismiss DNA, but ALL DNA test done on them tell us that they are not accurate.

“Try harder :)”

Level 8

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#14603 Mar 30, 2013
trollslayer wrote:
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.
The point I was saying he unlike Winters or Sertimate, Hawass actually does archaeological stuff. The point was not about questioning if he is a UErocentric or not because I know he is...
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.
I already now that but again that is not enough...Sertima and Winters only argument for the Olmecs being black is that phenotypic features of the Olmecs. That's all they have...

“Try harder :)”

Level 8

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#14605 Mar 30, 2013
Ancient Egyptian wrote:
The arguement was not over wether it is African or not....It's wether it was Black African or North African Eurasian.
Your point?
Ancient Egyptian wrote:
And as you can see from numerous artifacts and papyrus scrolls its indeed North African.
Do you know that 'black Africans' are native to North Africa?
Ancient Egyptian wrote:
Nobody is saying blacks were not involved in it but they're just a small minority, the same can be said of the Moors.
Yet it started from upper Egypt where the people were African and even Barros agrees with that.-__-
Ancient Egyptian wrote:
Leave the Olmecs alone...they're not your history.
Try something called 'reading', I argued that the Olmecs are not African. Please just don't run head first into a conversation that has no business for you.
Ancient Egyptian wrote:
Learn West/sub-Saharan African History...There is much not yet discovered. You have lots of work to do, my lost afrocentric friend.
There you will find your beginnings.
Again reading skills...Try it.

“Try harder :)”

Level 8

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#14607 Mar 30, 2013
trollslayer wrote:
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.
The Olmec heads having /V*gr0*d features is the only argument for the Olmecs being black. But what you and Winters don't know is that Olmec art is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from art seen in Africa. Not only that but the '/V*gr0*d features' is not only limited to Africans.
trollslayer wrote:
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.
Yes Africans did make contribution to the world. But the Olmecs or the 'black Eurasians' outside Africa are NOT African.

“Try harder :)”

Level 8

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#14609 Mar 30, 2013
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
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".
<quoted text>
Most Africans have nothing to do with Egypt, certainly not Ancient Egypt, so it's still nonsense and ridiculous.
<quoted text>
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?
<quoted text>
I don't even bother debating about Egypt anymore. I'm not interested in Egypt, nor am I interested in defending their ancient color.
<quoted text>
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.
I already explained why people defend Ancient Egypt a lot. They are just trying to put put it a part of African history...Because right now it is not a part of African history.

Heck people like Sally-Ann Ashton tries to put Ancient Egypt as African history.
&fe ature=youtu.be

There is nothing wrong with AA's being interested in Ancient Egypt. My younger sister studied Egyptology and lived in Egypt for some while. Also there is nothing wrong with wanting to put it a part of African history. Western Europeans always talk about the Ancient Greeks and not their western European history. But I agree AA's saying they descend from the Ancient Egyptians is flawed.

You can agree-disagree with this.

“Try harder :)”

Level 8

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#14610 Mar 30, 2013
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I didn't even bother replying to that idiots comment...He's clearly a delusional Eurocentric. He clearly has a twisted mind if he truly believes there is a 'Negr@id Haplogroup'.
trollslayer

Midlothian, IL

#14611 Mar 30, 2013
big mike M wrote:
<quoted text>
Black is only a skin color...Everyone who lives in the tropics would have 'black' skin.
http://i1050.photobucket.com/albums/s417/King...
^^^Those Andaman people are 'black' but are they related to Africans? No...I already told you that those black Eurasians are only descents of those who left Africa and NOT MODERN AFRICANS. They are distant. Again Phenotypes don't correlate with genotypes. This has nothing to do with Eurocentrics saying they are not African, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT AFRICAN.
<quoted text>
This doesn't prove anything...ALL DNA test on 'black' Eurasians tell us that they are genetically distant from Africans and it is a FACT. I think you are trying hard to dismiss DNA, but ALL DNA test done on them tell us that they are not accurate.
1) Nothing is this world is absolute. 2) those Andaman PPL. look that way cuz they never really mixed with others when they left Africa. Sure I get they're not "modern Africans". Fact is they are of African descent. You act like there is no such thing as "Africa descent"....AA's are of "Africa descent", PPL., Caribbeans are of "Africa descent" so are PPL. in S.America etc.
big mike M wrote:
"Everyone who lives in the tropics would have 'black' skin."
False....if that were the case white Arabs wouda' turned "black" by now. The whites in S.Africa wouda' turned "black" or be moving in that direction. There are whites in the Caribbean. They been since 16-1700's and they are still white.
big mike M wrote:
"I think you are trying hard to dismiss DNA"
Not really. "DNA" has it's place, but it's not infallible. There's tons in info. out there on the problems with DNA accuracy. There's info. out there on how it can be manipulated to serve a agenda. With that said....if it can proof a person innocent of a crime, great.
trollslayer

Midlothian, IL

#14613 Mar 30, 2013
big mike M wrote:
<quoted text>
The point I was saying he unlike Winters or Sertimate, Hawass actually does archaeological stuff. The point was not about questioning if he is a UErocentric or not because I know he is...
<quoted text>
I already now that but again that is not enough...Sertima and Winters only argument for the Olmecs being black is that phenotypic features of the Olmecs. That's all they have...
I'm familiar with Hawass. However, what difference does it make if he's
on "front lines" LYING about or covering up his findings? We can agree there must be Africans out there who can & should be present when excavations are done. Otherwise I do not trust the findings.
____
ON Winters or Sertima.....what they've done is opened the door... it's up to Black archeologists to walk in and objectively evaluate the findings. Again..history shows the majority of whites will not tell the truth. Thats been proven or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
trollslayer

Midlothian, IL

#14614 Mar 30, 2013
big mike M wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't even bother replying to that idiots comment...He's clearly a delusional Eurocentric. He clearly has a twisted mind if he truly believes there is a 'Negr@id Haplogroup'.
"C ME" is a example of a racist troll, who doesn't deserve a response until he learns a certain degree of forum etiquette.

Level 2

Since: May 11

El Monte, CA

#14616 Mar 30, 2013
Nubian settled America. We all heard the faint talk on this from academic. Why did stop talking about either you found Egypt artifacts or not. They did and it was supress because it was Nubian Blacks who came. I dont follow DNA I compare culture,dress style,ritual and physiques. Most of the Native Indians culture doesnt resemble the fareast but moreso African And Phoenecians.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#14617 Mar 30, 2013
trollslayer wrote:
<quoted text>
There's enough information both ways on who and what the Olmec Xi PPL. were and were not.
No, there's plenty of information in support of an American origin, and practically no information at all, that can withstand even the most basic scrutiny, in support of an African origin, which is why no scientist or scholar who is taken seriously in academia takes the notion of an African origin seriously.
trollslayer wrote:
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"
There are no "African depictions" because there is no evidence of any "African presence", as such, they are no African heads, and yes they can be discounted as being native because there are no other LOGICAL candidates besides Native Americans since they were the only ones that were there at the time that real evidence actually supports.
trollslayer wrote:
..I've looked and looked, I still can't find "natives" who look like Olmecs.
You don't know what Olmecs looked like, so how would find anyone that "looks" like them? All you know is what they created, and those heads they created look nothing like any African creation.

Not only that, but it just so happens that there is NO evidence that Africans were in America at all in 1200 BC., or any other time before or after that date up to 1492 AD.
trollslayer wrote:
I read Coe and I am quite disappointed why he can't or won't explain the heads.
He has explained the heads, just like I and everyone else has. The features are exaggerated.

MICHAEL D. COE

"Van Sertima and his associates have committed the fallacy of taking a style of art as racial fact. If this kind of reasoning were valid, then we should assume that all Hellenistic Greeks looked like Alexander the Great and that the women of Paris in the 1930s had three eyes and two noses. The colossal heads really are portraits of Olmec rulers, but the physiognomies of those rulers were altered to fit the prevailing Olmec canons of monumental art. Olmec jade carvers had somewhat different canons, producing slightly "Oriental"-looking figurines. Neither the great heads nor the figurines are to be taken as phenotypical fact."

http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php...
trollslayer wrote:
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.
That Olmecs are Native American is evidenced by numerous sources that are not only credible, but have actually done the field research, the archaeological digs, the genetic tests, the linguistic diagnostics.

They've done what real scientists and scholars do

That Olmecs are African is supported by no modern Mesoamerican scientist/specialist, which is why no matter how many times I ask anyone, they can never produce a name of one.
trollslayer wrote:
Side note...so-called mainstream scholars have lied about so much that no one can believe them or their "findings".
But if they find African skeletons and DNA, we can believe them and their findings then, huh?

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#14618 Mar 30, 2013
big mike M wrote:
<quoted text>
I already explained why people defend Ancient Egypt a lot. They are just trying to put put it a part of African history...Because right now it is not a part of African history.
Heck people like Sally-Ann Ashton tries to put Ancient Egypt as African history.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =CLoDgDE83rsXX&feature=you tu.be
There is nothing wrong with AA's being interested in Ancient Egypt. My younger sister studied Egyptology and lived in Egypt for some while. Also there is nothing wrong with wanting to put it a part of African history. Western Europeans always talk about the Ancient Greeks and not their western European history. But I agree AA's saying they descend from the Ancient Egyptians is flawed.
You can agree-disagree with this.
Yes it is part of African history and has been since it was discovered. There is no serious educated person who believes that Egypt is not in Africa, so what you're saying almost sounds like strawman argument. Nor do most academics believe that Egyptians came from outside Africa. Even Wikipedia evidences as much. So do all the African history books I have ever read and looked at, whether written in the 21st century or in the 20th century.

I'm not concerning so called interest in Egypt. I'm concerning this ridiculous obsession and hypocrisy that afrocentrists bear in relation to Egypt.

They try to use that same garbage excuse about their obsessions being a reaction to eurocentrism, but when eurocentrists say something belittling or demeaning about African achievements SOUTH of Egypt, and especially south and WEST of Egypt, they are less apt to try and rebuke such sayings.

That's my problem. Why the blatant hypocrisy? Why are you (not you literally) trying to make it seem like you care EQUALLY about defending Africa from eurocentrists when you really only care about defending Egypt, and not even really their achievements, but just them being Black, and why does that matter more to AA's than actual Egyptians or even other Diasporans?
Bmacwaters

Brooklyn, NY

#14619 Mar 30, 2013
Barros Serrano wrote:
<quoted text>\
You have no evidence. Whereas, DNA studies of Native Americans constitute evidence of no African admixture pre-Columbus. And why didn't Native Americans have immunity to Old World diseases when the Spanish got here? If Africans had been here, that would have already happened. But... nothing.
No ships, no DNA, no crops, no human remains... NOTHING!
GET your filthy grubby RACIST Afronazi paws off other peoples' histories!
You must be speaking to someone white because this IS my history, but not yours. You have nothing to do with this story and I'm starting to realize this. You are a non factor! You are on the side of evil and are possessed by demons! Real sh!t! You're a real life demon in need of an exorcism. Seriously or nothing you ever do will go right! Nothing!

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#14620 Mar 30, 2013
Punchojr wrote:
Nubian settled America.
No they didn't. Stop f8cking lying about Nubians' history. They did not go to the freakin' Americas. There is no evidence of it.

I'm getting tired of you peoples' lies.

“Try harder :)”

Level 8

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#14624 Mar 30, 2013
trollslayer wrote:
1) Nothing is this world is absolute. 2) those Andaman PPL. look that way cuz they never really mixed with others when they left Africa. Sure I get they're not "modern Africans". Fact is they are of African descent. You act like there is no such thing as "Africa descent"....AA's are of "Africa descent", PPL., Caribbeans are of "Africa descent" so are PPL. in S.America etc.
Again your whole argument is void. "Fact is they are of African descent." EVERYONE is of African descent. The 'FACT' is Africans are much more closely related to Europeans and Arabs than those Andaman people, New Papuan people and Negritos of Southeast Asia!
http://i45.tinypic.com/2lb041s.jpg

I don't know why you are bringing up Caribbean people when they are obviously recent African descent, while the Andaman people are descendants of those who LEFT Africa 60k years ago...Yes know there is a such thing as African descent. But Andaman people are NOT African and are distant from them. This is getting tiresome...No offense if you are having trouble understanding this then tell me.
trollslayer wrote:
False....if that were the case white Arabs wouda' turned "black" by now. The whites in S.Africa wouda' turned "black" or be moving in that direction. There are whites in the Caribbean. They been since 16-1700's and they are still white.
Arabs do not live in tropical environment...-__-

People do not magically change that quick, it takes about 30k years for change in a population to kick in from being isolated.
trollslayer wrote:
Not really. "DNA" has it's place, but it's not infallible. There's tons in info. out there on the problems with DNA accuracy. There's info. out there on how it can be manipulated to serve a agenda. With that said....if it can proof a person innocent of a crime, great.
This still doesn't counter that the blacks of Eurasia are not genetically African.

“Try harder :)”

Level 8

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#14626 Mar 30, 2013
trollslayer wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm familiar with Hawass. However, what difference does it make if he's
on "front lines" LYING about or covering up his findings? We can agree there must be Africans out there who can & should be present when excavations are done. Otherwise I do not trust the findings.
____
ON Winters or Sertima.....what they've done is opened the door... it's up to Black archeologists to walk in and objectively evaluate the findings. Again..history shows the majority of whites will not tell the truth. Thats been proven or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Not true there are plenty of whites like Dr. Ashton, Basil Davidson, Kent Weeks, Barbara Lesko, Frank Yurco,etc who ACTUALLY tell the TRUTH unlike Winters or Sertima. They actually know what they are talking about and not only that, they have been labeled by Euronuts 'white Afrocentrics...'

Winters and Sertima DID NOT open the door. People like Anta Diop and John Henry Clark...What Winters and Sertima did open the door to is damaging Afrocentrism even more and making it even more identical to Eurocentrism.

The point I was making with Hawass is Eurocentrics like him are ACTUALLY doing archaeological research, while these Afrocentrics are doing known. There is a higher chance of a guilble person believing Hawass Eurocentric garbage than Winters Afrocentric garbage. Because unlike Winters, Hawass is actually DOES ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORK.

Who are you going to believe. Also I've seen posters shut Winters claims down on Egyptsearch.

Level 2

Since: May 11

El Monte, CA

#14628 Mar 30, 2013
The claim of AAs descending from Egypt is not totally flawed. Probably to some percentage. Africans traded with eachother as well. Some say the Dogon are of runaway priest from Egypt. All the invaders on Egypt surely pushed some local Egyptians into Africa. It happens all the time with others like Arabs who tract to Africa, Trail of Tears, New Orleans Katrina Victims, you get my drift.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#14629 Mar 30, 2013
Punchojr wrote:
The claim of AAs descending from Egypt is not totally flawed. Probably to some percentage. Africans traded with eachother as well. Some say the Dogon are of runaway priest from Egypt. All the invaders on Egypt surely pushed some local Egyptians into Africa. It happens all the time with others like Arabs who tract to Africa, Trail of Tears, New Orleans Katrina Victims, you get my drift.
You people really need to sit down and dedicate a fews/days to reading REAL African history from REAL Africanist researchers and scholars.

Dogon were not Egyptian priests.

Nubians never settled America.

And AA's have absolutely NOTHING to do with Egyptians. Our ancestry came from SUB SAHARAN Africa, not Egypt.

Stop trying to associate us with Ancient Egyptians. We have NOTHING to do with them and they have NOTHING to do with us.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Confederate flag fan defends the stars & bars (Jun '15) 10 min Dr Ruthann 187
black crime is getting out of control 11 min doby 92
Question about White People's Ethnicity Backgro... 13 min blackisking 2
Egyptians. Must leave Kemet Sacred lands and...... 15 min dcool 111
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 23 min IT- IS- I 130,593
Happy Birthday Trayvon Martin 23 min Kip 78
AMBW (Asian man Black woman) Love 24 min blackisking 2
The psycopathic personality of white "people" 31 min Hebrew Supremacist 33
Why are black people intellectually seem to be ... (Mar '11) 1 hr Larry 415
Dear Strong White Men, 1 hr PolakPotrafi 26
More from around the web