****Afrocentrism is not meant for ,,,...
Barros Serrano

Silver City, NM

#191 Feb 24, 2013
SEXYBLKWOMAN wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL they wouldn't claim that as that wouldn't make a lick of sense.
You are ignorant of the use of words in Castilian in the post-Medieval period.

“Negro” did not mean “black African” as we understand “black” today. As in English, it could mean simply a European with dark hair and eyes.

Here is yet another example of how you Afronazis always screw up, lacking sufficient education and knowledge of the subject to make reasonable evaluations. Your statements, therefore, are those of the ignorant lay lumpen, devoid of insight or wisdom.

In other words, yet again, you're wrong.
Barros Serrano

Silver City, NM

#192 Feb 24, 2013
pn2cladelover wrote:
they knew the difference between the indians and blacks ,they said in explicit detail there were blacks
Columbus had recorded the fact that Africans were trading with the Americas. In The Narrative of the Third Voyage, he wrote:
“Certain principal inhabitants of the island of Santiago came to see him, and they said that to the south-west of the island of Huego, which is one of the Cape Verde, distant twelve league from this, may be seen an island, and that the King Don Juan was greatly inclined to send to make discoveries to the south-west and that canoes had been found which start from the coasts of Guinea and navigate to the west with merchandise. 37”
Las Casas later wrote about Columbus saying:
“…That after he would navigate, the Lord pleasing, to the west, and from there would go to this Espanola in which route he would prove the theory of the King John aforesaid; and that he thought to investigate the report of the Indians of the Espanola (Haiti) who said that there had come to Espanola from the south and the south-east, a black people who have the tops of their spears made of a metal which they call “guanine” of which he had sent samples to the Sovereigns to have them assayed, when it was found that of 32 parts, 18 were of gold, 6 of silver and 8 of copper
Still no evidence. And Native Americans were engaged in metallurgy, contrary to the stereotype. If the Euros hadn't shown up, they would likely have advanced to an iron age quite rapidly.

If Africans had shown up with their far more advanced metallurgy, why wasn't Native metallurgy impacted by this?

Yet another indication that no Africans were here.
pn2cladelover

Netherlands

#193 Feb 24, 2013
Barros Serrano wrote:
<quoted text>
You are ignorant of the use of words in Castilian in the post-Medieval period.
“Negro” did not mean “black African” as we understand “black” today. As in English, it could mean simply a European with dark hair and eyes.
Here is yet another example of how you Afronazis always screw up, lacking sufficient education and knowledge of the subject to make reasonable evaluations. Your statements, therefore, are those of the ignorant lay lumpen, devoid of insight or wisdom.
In other words, yet again, you're wrong.
the spanish and portugese clearly state it was africans they saw

prove they were lying or mistaken
Barros Serrano

Silver City, NM

#194 Feb 24, 2013
trollslayer wrote:
<quoted text>
'barros' is the type who tries to force his non-supported opinion on others. he strikes me as the same type of idiot who would probably try to force himself on woman if she rejected him.
_________
he thinks those ISOLATED cartoon depictions in Alphonso's 'book of games' proves the majority of moors were white....lol. The key is ISOLATED cartoon depictions
LOL at your rhetorical cheap tricks. Nice try, Afronazi cult racist.

ISOLATED from what? They're not isolated. Every depiction we find from CONTEMPORARY IBERIANS shows overwhelmingly Eurasian Moors. Berbers. You call “cartoons” what was the normal mode of illustration in those days. Again, you show your abject ignorance and dropout status.

So, since my opinion is completely supported by a mountain of evidence (ancient as well as Medieval depictions, DNA, historical accounts, archaeology), obviously my situation vis-à-vis females is that they're chasing me.

You are a buffoon. Whose opinion should we trust regarding the appearance of the Moors in Iberia? Iberians who were there interacting with these same Moors? Or some Afronazi numbnuts who cannot deal with the evidence presented? Hmmmmm...
pn2cladelover

Netherlands

#195 Feb 24, 2013
Barros Serrano wrote:
<quoted text>
Still no evidence. And Native Americans were engaged in metallurgy, contrary to the stereotype. If the Euros hadn't shown up, they would likely have advanced to an iron age quite rapidly.
If Africans had shown up with their far more advanced metallurgy, why wasn't Native metallurgy impacted by this?
Yet another indication that no Africans were here.
what you taslking about,???????

prove they were lying
different eyewitness accounts said they saw africans
Barros Serrano

Silver City, NM

#196 Feb 24, 2013
SEXYBLKWOMAN wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL there are Next to NO blond and red head Middle easterners that's how i know you're full of shid.
The Berbers just like other Africans are distantly related to Europeans. Alot of the MIddle easterners have African ancestry do to Africans moving in and out of the middle east since the Paloethic however there were no Eurasians in the Palethic it's a dream a myth that White Worshipers like you use to claim a stake in Africa.
You are incorrect yet again. I have met blonde Mideasterners.

“Distantly related”, lol...what does that mean? Nothing. You would have to specify how related and in what way. You do not have a clue, thinking there were no Eurasians in the Palaeolithic! LOL! I doubt you know what “Palaeolithic” means. Eurasians existed from the time of OOA. They were all Upper Palaeolithic until economies diversified in the Mesolithic and then began to farm in the Neolithic.

The Eurasians who entered the Maghreb 30,000 years ago (proven by their remains) obviously were Upper Palaeolithic, as was EVERYONE on earth at that time.

See how ignorant you are? You know virtually nothing. What you know is wrong, being based on Afronazi cult racism.

Yes, Eurasians were in the Maghreb by 30,000 years ago. Proven. They were in Europe by that time also, of course. And the people settling the Maghreb were VERY much like those settling Europe in appearance, again, proven by their remains.

And you have nothing.

MAGHREB: predominantly Eurasian for 30,000 years!

“esa hembra es mala”

Level 8

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#197 Feb 24, 2013
Barros Serrano wrote:
<quoted text>
You are ignorant of the use of words in Castilian in the post-Medieval period.
“Negro” did not mean “black African” as we understand “black” today. As in English, it could mean simply a European with dark hair and eyes.
Here is yet another example of how you Afronazis always screw up, lacking sufficient education and knowledge of the subject to make reasonable evaluations. Your statements, therefore, are those of the ignorant lay lumpen, devoid of insight or wisdom.
In other words, yet again, you're wrong.
LOL post proof of this bullcrap that you're claiming? So your claim is that all dark skin people were called Negroes?

“esa hembra es mala”

Level 8

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#198 Feb 24, 2013
Barros Serrano wrote:
<quoted text>
You are incorrect yet again. I have met blonde Mideasterners.
LOL you meeting them doesn't do shid for your argument again there are next TO NO blond hair Middle easterners and in fact any Light skin in Middle easterners came from European contact.
Barros Serrano wrote:
<quoted text>
“Distantly related”, lol...what does that mean? Nothing. You would have to specify how related and in what way. You do not have a clue, thinking there were no Eurasians in the Palaeolithic! LOL! I doubt you know what “Palaeolithic” means. Eurasians existed from the time of OOA. They were all Upper
Distantly related means exactly what it is distantly related. The modern day Berber's are hybrid's.
There was no such thing as Eurasian during the OOA but nothing but Africans during the OOA and the research proves that Eurasians didn't change at first when they migrated out.
Barros Serrano wrote:
<quoted text>
Palaeolithic until economies diversified in the Mesolithic and then began to farm in the Neolithic.
The Eurasians who entered the Maghreb 30,000 years ago (proven by their remains) obviously were Upper Palaeolithic, as was EVERYONE on earth at that time.
Again you are repeating yourself but you have been debunked a million times there were NO EURASIANS in North Africa during the Upper Paloethic and in fact 99 percent of the Eurasians came during the Neolithic and onwards.
Barros Serrano wrote:
<quoted text>
See how ignorant you are? You know virtually nothing. What you know is wrong, being based on Afronazi cult racism.
Yes, Eurasians were in the Maghreb by 30,000 years ago. Proven. They were in Europe by that time also, of course. And the people settling the Maghreb were VERY much like those settling Europe in appearance, again, proven by their remains.
And you have nothing.
MAGHREB: predominantly Eurasian for 30,000 years!
You're a ret*arded c8nt that has yet to prove anything what yo say. No Eurasians in North Africa all remains are those of tropically adapted Africans.
They can't even contend with the fact when did Europeans moved in and you can't disprove the fact that the most if not all of their paternal line minus Kayblies and some Rift's are African lines.
Barros Serrano

Silver City, NM

#199 Feb 24, 2013
pn2cladelover wrote:
<quoted text>
the spanish and portugese clearly state it was africans they saw
prove they were lying or mistaken
No, they did not, boy.

They used the word “negros”. Do you know castiian and portuguese? I do.

Shut the F up and sit the hell down.
Barros Serrano

Silver City, NM

#200 Feb 24, 2013
Care to actually understand the way 15th-century Spanish and Portuguesse used language?

The most thorough study of this is by Ramón Menéndez-Pidal. I read it carefully. Can't remember the title.

You Afronazis with no education in history, anthropology or science at all, should not now jump into speculating about etymology and linguistics.

Pinche tontos.

“No Substitute For The Truth”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

United States

#201 Feb 24, 2013
Barros Serrano wrote:
<quoted text>
Wiener, lol. No evidence, no proof. He is debunked by academia.
Still no:
1. DNA
2. crops
3. disease immunity
4. human remains
5. cultural artifacts
6. boats
NO evidence for Africans in America pre-1492.
You say Clyde Winters is NOT a linguist & neither is Michael Cole who has been ur only reference for The Olmecs.
Barros Serrano

Silver City, NM

#202 Feb 24, 2013
SEXYBLKWOMAN wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL you meeting them doesn't do shid for your argument again there are next TO NO blond hair Middle easterners and in fact any Light skin in Middle easterners came from European contact.
<quoted text>
Distantly related means exactly what it is distantly related. The modern day Berber's are hybrid's.
There was no such thing as Eurasian during the OOA but nothing but Africans during the OOA and the research proves that Eurasians didn't change at first when they migrated out.
<quoted text>
Again you are repeating yourself but you have been debunked a million times there were NO EURASIANS in North Africa during the Upper Paloethic and in fact 99 percent of the Eurasians came during the Neolithic and onwards.
<quoted text>
You're a ret*arded c8nt that has yet to prove anything what yo say. No Eurasians in North Africa all remains are those of tropically adapted Africans.
They can't even contend with the fact when did Europeans moved in and you can't disprove the fact that the most if not all of their paternal line minus Kayblies and some Rift's are African lines.
Quite a racist hissy fit you're having...

But, alas, there is no getting around the FACT that the DNA in the Maghreb for 30,000 years has been Eurasian, and that the 30,000-yr-old remains were morphologically almost identical to Cro-Magnon.

You are utterly ignorant. OOA was at least 60k yrs ago. Eurasians entered the Maghreb 30k yrs ago. Not the same time period. You are speaking of irrelevancies.

By 30k yrs ago, and in fact much earlier, we see already the evolution of proto-Mideastern and proto-European types. Those who entered the Maghreb were among these early Eurasian types, having recently diverged from the common ancestor IJ, itself daughter of IJK, in turn from F, from CF, which is the original Eurasian type responsible for all Eurasian Y-types save D.

See how little you know, halfwitted drooling bigot with a bug up your ass?

Clearly the base, indigenous, population of the Maghreb is Eurasian. Over the past 30k years, the Maghreb has been consistently either purely or predominantly Eurasian. As it remains today. As were the Guanches. Maghreb DNA has been mostly Mideastern, but with some European and African mixed in.

The Tuareg, on the other hand, were originally of predominant iberian ancestry.
Barros Serrano

Silver City, NM

#203 Feb 24, 2013
SEXYBLKWOMAN wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL post proof of this bullcrap that you're claiming? So your claim is that all dark skin people were called Negroes?
It is well-known, you virtual illiterate.

Why did they call the short-statured people of the Andamans, Nicobars, Malayan jungle, etc.,“negritos”(little blacks)? They weren't Africans. But they were dark.

The Euros called Australians “black”.

During the war of the USA against the Philippines 1899-1902, the USA press referred to the Filipino soldiers as “n----rs”.

You actually didn't know that the terms “black” and “negro” have been used for a wide variety of people? Europeans even used that word for dark-haired europeans!

DAMN you're ignorant! It's AMAZING! Did you drop out of 8th grade? You were already 16 by then, right?
Barros Serrano

Silver City, NM

#204 Feb 24, 2013
Redefined wrote:
<quoted text>
You say Clyde Winters is NOT a linguist & neither is Michael Cole who has been ur only reference for The Olmecs.
Michael Coe is an archaeologist. His writing was regarding archaeological finds which show a Soconusco origin for the Olmecs. This has nothing to do with linguistics, except that archaeologists, as a result of this solid evidence for Soconusco, have argued against linguists who claim that the Olmec language was Mixe-Zoque. Since the Olmecs came from Soconusco, it is far more likely that their language was of Mayan type.

People think of the Maya as being from the Yucatán, but they were from Soconusco, and their first major city was Kaminaljuyú, in southern Guatemala. Look for it on a map. I lived near there. I have been in Soconusco. The people there are still Mayan.

Clyde Winters is an Afronazi clown. Michael Coe is a respected archaeologist. See the difference? Sort of like the difference between you and me.
Barros Serrano

Silver City, NM

#205 Feb 24, 2013
pn2cladelover wrote:
<quoted text>
what you taslking about,???????
prove they were lying
different eyewitness accounts said they saw africans
No they do not. And where is the evidence for these Africans?

1. DNA
2. crops
3. human remains
4. cultural artifacts
5. disease immunity
6. boats

But, alas, sadly, nothing.

Not a damned thing still...

“No Substitute For The Truth”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

United States

#206 Feb 24, 2013
trollslayer wrote:
<quoted text>
" Some researchers say that the Mesoamerican writing systems are related to African scripts. In the early 19th century, Constantine Samuel Rafinesque proposed that the Mayan inscriptions were probably related to the Libyco-Berber writing of Africa"
Yes he studied The Mayan inscriptions & made this discovery in which 'The New York Times' article also support. According to their research, The Olmecs came from North or Northwest Africa. It's quite possible when The Sahara dried, the migrants might have split up & went separate directions with some heading toward The Nile Valley of course & others heading West.

“No Substitute For The Truth”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

United States

#207 Feb 24, 2013
Barros Serrano wrote:
<quoted text>
Michael Coe is an archaeologist. His writing was regarding archaeological finds which show a Soconusco origin for the Olmecs. This has nothing to do with linguistics, except that archaeologists, as a result of this solid evidence for Soconusco, have argued against linguists who claim that the Olmec language was Mixe-Zoque. Since the Olmecs came from Soconusco, it is far more likely that their language was of Mayan type.
People think of the Maya as being from the Yucatán, but they were from Soconusco, and their first major city was Kaminaljuyú, in southern Guatemala. Look for it on a map. I lived near there. I have been in Soconusco. The people there are still Mayan.
Clyde Winters is an Afronazi clown. Michael Coe is a respected archaeologist. See the difference? Sort of like the difference between you and me.
Michael Cole is NOT a linguist therefore he cannot decipher any Mesoamerican languages.

“No Substitute For The Truth”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

United States

#208 Feb 24, 2013
trollslayer wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously there's enuff info. out here to substantiate a African presence in the Americas. Just the fact that Africans were the 1st to populate the earth should be enuff evidence...in and of itself.
Oh darn, I forgot, everybody was strangely turned into "eurasians" the minute they left Africa.....lol.
And the fact EVERYONE here has presented some kinda research article, cited a source or referenced an anthologists, archeologists or linguists in which all support our arguments.
trollslayer

Chicago, IL

#209 Feb 24, 2013
Redefined wrote:
<quoted text>
You say Clyde Winters is NOT a linguist & neither is Michael Cole who has been ur only reference for The Olmecs.
true and Coe didn't have the balls to present pictures of the Olmes in his 'tourist article'. Let know if you want to see the article.
pn2cladelover

Netherlands

#210 Feb 24, 2013
Barros Serrano wrote:
<quoted text>
No they do not. And where is the evidence for these Africans?
1. DNA
2. crops
3. human remains
4. cultural artifacts
5. disease immunity
6. boats
But, alas, sadly, nothing.
Not a damned thing still...
why should you find any of these things there if you were trading,

why havent we found most meso american treasures,artifacts from the past?????????

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
BM Thwarts White Rapist & Robber. 1 min Oh No You Di-nt 55
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Notliz 1,406,477
White Crime: Few Comments (Sep '09) 6 min bluestreak returns 3,556
Dear White People 6 min bluestreak returns 306
Dallas Shooter wrote "RB" in blood 7 min Dan Snow 345
Do you monkeys still have your tails in the air 7 min u Make Me Laugh 18
Why do chimps always look like they're smiling? 9 min Even Chimps Know 1
More from around the web