Barros Serrano

Reserve, NM

#6837 Aug 18, 2012
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I am not here to flatly reject the notion of African presence in Americas. I am here to analyze the current data and attempt to make logical deductions as a result. And the conclusion I've reached is that, there is no evidence of an African origin to the Americas since there is no evidence of Africans even making it to the Americas in the first place, because if they had made it, and had enough people to spark a full blown civilization, they would have left boat remnants along the coastal regions or not too far inland of the Americas. No such African remains have ever been found large or small. No African settlements have been found.
Exactly. Evidence is what matters. Likewise, if I see good evidence for Africans in America, I will accept it as I accept any evidence which is reliable.

It is sad that the same battle which has had to be fought to have Africa recognized as a civilization, even the bias which had reached me in terms of not calling W Africa an independent ag center simply because it was not structured spatially the same as the one in the Mideast... and even the existence of civilizations, which when found were then ascribed to Arabs or Persians.

Well, that same struggle had to be fought in America, where the whites were claiming the eastern USA mounds were built by Egyptians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Greeks, Basques, Bretons, ANYONE but Native Americans!!! Proper archaeological analysis of the Hopewell mounds shows that the ancestors of the SHAWNEE built them!

And now I'm here going through the same process with Afronazis who insist that Native civilizations were not built by Natives! They won't ever say it, and don't even think it consciously, but these BLACK AFRONAZIS are in fact thinking,“Those dumb Injuns couldn't have done this, we know they just lived in tipis and smoked the peace pipe.” SAME crap the white racists think.

Sorry, Afronazis, but the Native Americans were skilled in astronomy, agriculture, art, literature... and in fact contrary to popular knowledge they were developing metallurgy at several sites.

OLMECS = 100% Native Americans!!!

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#6838 Aug 18, 2012
Barros Serrano wrote:
It is sad that the same battle which has had to be fought to have Africa recognized as a civilization, even the bias which had reached me in terms of not calling W Africa an independent ag center simply because it was not structured spatially the same as the one in the Mideast... and even the existence of civilizations, which when found were then ascribed to Arabs or Persians.
Well, that same struggle had to be fought in America, where the whites were claiming the eastern USA mounds were built by Egyptians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Greeks, Basques, Bretons, ANYONE but Native Americans!!! Proper archaeological analysis of the Hopewell mounds shows that the ancestors of the SHAWNEE built them!
This is the exact conclusion I had reached soon after our own debate, which prompted me to jump in this one. At first I decided I didn't want to be a part of this thread's argument, but after realizing the same dynamics being played out here as has been done historically to African civilizations, I said that it's just not right.

Hopefully you've had the chance to view the documentary, Africa: A History Denied. In it, it details how the British, upon discovering the Great Zimbabwe ruins, they immediately ASSUMED that it HAD to have been created by an ancient white people. Or perhaps, Persians, or Arabs, or anyone except dumb natives. So that began to dig, really pillage and plunder, for evidence of the mythological people and, surprise surprise, they found none. In the process of them committing this atrocity, they nearly destroyed ANY evidence that one of the greatest civilizations of the interior of Africa had even existed.

When I think about this, it makes me want to knife the people that did it. And now the same Blacks who've had their own civilizations be denied to them, are attempting to try and seize, Native American history. It's not right.
Barros Serrano wrote:
And now I'm here going through the same process with Afronazis who insist that Native civilizations were not built by Natives! They won't ever say it, and don't even think it consciously, but these BLACK AFRONAZIS are in fact thinking,“Those dumb Injuns couldn't have done this, we know they just lived in tipis and smoked the peace pipe.” SAME crap the white racists think.
Sorry, Afronazis, but the Native Americans were skilled in astronomy, agriculture, art, literature... and in fact contrary to popular knowledge they were developing metallurgy at several sites.
OLMECS = 100% Native Americans!!!
These people are going by the superficial notion of the Olmec heads looking "African". This frame of logic is faulty on its face. Even if "eye" anthropology was a valid method of discerning origins and relationships, they would still fail, because there are SO MANY artifacts that don't look ANYTHING like any African groups, yet no one cares to ever explain this blatant contradiction.

How can you assume that Olmecs were African based on physical appearance, when most Olmec artifacts don't look anything like Africans, let alone any known African artifacts?

Black African presence occurs in all regions of Africa, in places of Europe, West Asia, India...there's nobody saying that Africans didn't leave Africa. There is simply no evidence that they came to the Americas to settle, let alone build civilizations.

“Try harder :)”

Level 8

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#6839 Aug 18, 2012
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the exact conclusion I had reached soon after our own debate, which prompted me to jump in this one. At first I decided I didn't want to be a part of this thread's argument, but after realizing the same dynamics being played out here as has been done historically to African civilizations, I said that it's just not right.
Hopefully you've had the chance to view the documentary, Africa: A History Denied. In it, it details how the British, upon discovering the Great Zimbabwe ruins, they immediately ASSUMED that it HAD to have been created by an ancient white people. Or perhaps, Persians, or Arabs, or anyone except dumb natives. So that began to dig, really pillage and plunder, for evidence of the mythological people and, surprise surprise, they found none. In the process of them committing this atrocity, they nearly destroyed ANY evidence that one of the greatest civilizations of the interior of Africa had even existed.
When I think about this, it makes me want to knife the people that did it. And now the same Blacks who've had their own civilizations be denied to them, are attempting to try and seize, Native American history. It's not right.
<quoted text>
These people are going by the superficial notion of the Olmec heads looking "African". This frame of logic is faulty on its face. Even if "eye" anthropology was a valid method of discerning origins and relationships, they would still fail, because there are SO MANY artifacts that don't look ANYTHING like any African groups, yet no one cares to ever explain this blatant contradiction.
How can you assume that Olmecs were African based on physical appearance, when most Olmec artifacts don't look anything like Africans, let alone any known African artifacts?
Black African presence occurs in all regions of Africa, in places of Europe, West Asia, India...there's nobody saying that Africans didn't leave Africa. There is simply no evidence that they came to the Americas to settle, let alone build civilizations.
C/S 100%...

“100%”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

United States

#6840 Aug 18, 2012
Barros Serrano wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't get it. The Maya and the Olmec ancestors were in Soconusco at the same time. They were adjacent. Y'all think that because the Olmec civilization was older, that the Mayans didn't exist yet! YES THEY DID, they just hadn't built any civilization yet. They were in SOCONUSCO, the same place from which the Olmecs came! Get it?
Their pottery, art, etc., proves that they are linked, AND, the art (including large stone heads) in Soconusco CLEARLY shows that those were the early OLMECS!!!
Like I said, I know the area. I know where all this stuff is. I lived just north of Soconusco in the Guatemalan highlands, north of Kaminaljuyú, the first Mayan civilization that we know of. I have driven the highway from Veracruz, through Oaxaca and Chiapas to Guatemala. I can see that it is a natural route for migration from Soconusco to Veracruz. And as Coe & Coe explain, it is the only logical explanation for the sudden population surge in Veracruz coinciding with the first Mayan ceremonial center's construction.
Could this be any clearer?
The Olmecs were from SOCONUSCO. They had connections with the Maya BEFORE they built the civilization. The Maya also are from Soconusco.
GET IT???
The Olmecs INFLUENCED The Mayans or Olmecs had greater INFLUENCE. This does NOT mean they are same PPL or they spoke the same language. I dunno why you can't understand two distinctive groups coexisting within' the same region.

“100%”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

United States

#6841 Aug 18, 2012
Barros Serrano wrote:
<quoted text>
We do not have PROOF of their language... but this has NOTHING to do with their origin, which is proven: Soconusco.
I do know that their language was Native American. What are the choices in that area? Mixe-Zoque, Mayan, Uto-Aztecan... a few smaller isolates, but the archaeological evidence points to a language in the Mayan group.
I mean, Huastec is Mayan... think about it.
You do not know until you have proof. So far I haven't seen any. As long as this thread has been going, you should have some proof by now.
trollslayer

Midlothian, IL

#6842 Aug 18, 2012
Barros Serrano wrote:
<quoted text>
Weiner's conclusions are IMPOSSIBLE due to chronology.
You're gonna pay, not me...u old, panty-wearing,loser. I know where Mexico is and I've been there. That Olmec heads were left to prove that lying trolls like you are trying to commit African, culture-genocidal thief. Just like you lying about Africans not be a seagoing people.

There a reason posters have LABELED YOU A RACIST.

They WILL NEVER DO THAT TO ME...cuz I tell the TRUTH.

__________
The heads are of Black men. Link where Weiner was wrong. You Hate Van Sertima cuz he's Black and anti-establishment. Link where von Wuthenau's heads and ARTIFACTS were made in a "basement". No more b.s. essays, just links.

“100%”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

United States

#6843 Aug 18, 2012
Even tho Mande PPL currently live in West Africa, The Olmecs during the time could have easily traveled to America from elsewhere besides West Africa if that is not were they originally lived.
trollslayer

Midlothian, IL

#6844 Aug 18, 2012
Barros Serrano wrote:
<quoted text>
You're laughing at NATIVE AMERICANS in AMERICA?
Let's just examine that... you're NUTS!!!
WITHOUT evidence, you want us to ASSUME that Africans were in Mexico, and if we don't agree to that we're Eurocentric racists in denial who hate black people, have I got that right?
You're an idiot.
UR peers here at Topix have DETERMINED YOU ARE A RACIST
__________
http://rlv.zcache.com/ancient_olmec_head_prin...
You hate this Black Man and do does Coe...that why he doesn't show him and others like him in his tourist propaganda article.
trollslayer

Midlothian, IL

#6845 Aug 18, 2012
" You hate this Black Man and so does Coe."
trollslayer

Midlothian, IL

#6846 Aug 18, 2012
Barros Serrano wrote:
<quoted text>

It would appear that I am greatly superior to you in EVERY way, loser.
Because someone built a canoe in Africa, that means they sailed to America? LOL... that is scientific thinking to you, boy?
Africans have sailed and walked all over this earth from the beginning of time. For you to say otherwise is to deny ancient African culture in the most scurrilous, genocidal way. You walk with the beast from The Book of Revelations
__________
The posters luv me at Topix....LOL. It is NOT ME THEY'VE deemed as RACIST...it's you and there a thread to prove it. A RACIST can NEVER be "greatly superior" to anything you silly, 60+yr, old clown.
trollslayer

Midlothian, IL

#6847 Aug 18, 2012
Redefined wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting. But I still don't understand how one could draw the language spoken due too contacts in the Soconusco region. Multiple languages can be spoken in the same region. And since Olmecs pre-date Mayans, Olmecs could have easily spoken older language prior to The Mayans in the same region.
No argument here.
trollslayer

Midlothian, IL

#6848 Aug 18, 2012
Redefined wrote:
"The public may think that all the important archaeological sites in Mexico are known. But this is not the case," said David Grove, a professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who has worked in central Mexico for more than 40 years.
"Ninety-five percent of Mexico remains essentially unexplored."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/...
"The forces of modernization" destroy hundreds, maybe even thousands, of unexplored sites every year, he speculated.

"For most of the country there is still a great knowledge void," Grove said. "The further you get from major towns and major highways, the less is known."

I'm surprised the left this guys face intact.
http://rlv.zcache.com/ancient_olmec_head_prin...

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#6849 Aug 18, 2012
Redefined wrote:
Even tho Mande PPL currently live in West Africa, The Olmecs during the time could have easily traveled to America from elsewhere besides West Africa if that is not were they originally lived.
Somewhere else besides West Africa? Like East Asia you mean?

So you're suggesting that the Malinke-Bambara people migrated from West African into West Asia, into Central Asia until reaching Eastern most Asia, crossed the Bering Straight and into Alaska. They then traversed into Canada down into America and finally Mexico. They then chose to go an migrate specifically down towards the San Lorenzo area and start the build of a grand civilization.

Am I getting this right?
34zzza5673

Eskilstuna, Sweden

#6850 Aug 18, 2012
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
We know, because none of what has been analyzed so far extends back to an ancient time period. We also know because no Native American group clusters genetically with any African group; not even close. This tells us that they are very unrelated to each other.
<quoted text>
They gave credit for Australians reaching the Americas first and even Melanesians. Does this mean they are only racist towards Black people when it comes to those that originate in Africa, but not those who originate in Australia or Melanesia? This is insane. Nobody has reported African presence because nobody has found any. Plain and simple.
<quoted text>
Because there is no evidence of any remnants of ancient large boats in West Africa. Why would they build them in the first place? The smaller boats they used were sufficient enough for the tasks they needed them for.
<quoted text>
This is impossible. In order to understand why, you have to understand the complexity of the issue at hand.
You are suggesting that a single African group came to the Americas and when they got here, for some reason, they just decided they wanted to build some "giant heads" of themselves.
Well, first, if you read anything about Olmec history, you will discover that the Olmecs built those heads to honor their rulers. The Olmec civilization, being a civilization, and a prosperous one at that, would have boasted a population numbering the thousands, or even tens of thousands, just to be able to have and sustain a rich and stable enough economy to be able to not only build giant heads, but to dedicate their time creating numerous artifacts, making other statues and figurines, building ballcourts, designing head materials and other adornments, creating pyramids and mounds...there were A LOT of people here.
A single African boat would not have carried enough people (only about 4 or 5 max) to create such a civilization. If a single band ever did reach it to the Americas, THE LAST thing on their minds would have been to build some giant purposeless heads.
There would have had to have been many numerous trips across the Atlantic in order to forge the kind of civilization needed in order to explain for an African origin of so many artifacts and structure, which means that trip, could NOT possibly have been a "one-way".
The fact that there would have been many dozens and more probably hundreds of trips to the Americas would lead one to ask---"Where did they leave ALL THOSE BOATS!?" Alas, such a necessary question has never been answered.
In any case, why would any African come a distant foreign land any attempt to erect a series of monumental structures when that African has never done so before then? He and his band would have certainly been forced to become hunter gatherers and NOT civilization builders, let alone giant monument builders, like the Olmecs were.
Whites have used Australoids to explain any African like skulls found out Africa. They have tried to claim Natufians skulls in the levant were australoid. They could not have been African. Africa being closer to the levant than Australoids on the other side of the planet. Even skull found in north Africa have been explained as archaic humans. Others came up with the archaic human who lived along side "modern humans" as late as 12, 000 yeaRS AGO. To whites let it be anything bantu African. That is how they explained away the African like skull in Brazil.

“100%”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

United States

#6851 Aug 18, 2012
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
Somewhere else besides West Africa? Like East Asia you mean?
So you're suggesting that the Malinke-Bambara people migrated from West African into West Asia, into Central Asia until reaching Eastern most Asia, crossed the Bering Straight and into Alaska. They then traversed into Canada down into America and finally Mexico. They then chose to go an migrate specifically down towards the San Lorenzo area and start the build of a grand civilization.
Am I getting this right?
No I'm saying if Olmecs came from "Africa", it doesn't necessarily mean they came from "West Africa" during the time.
trollslayer

Midlothian, IL

#6852 Aug 18, 2012
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
Nuthin much, Sir, Just sittin' back listenin' to some Sudanese music while I read up on some Nubian history. I just have a penchant for studying actual African cultures in the actual continent of Africa, instead of looking for them in foreign lands non-African lands. Guess, I'm an anomaly.
By the way, I didn't know Sudanese music was this good. I heard of Tigre music, and it sounds pretty good too, but I hadn't heard Sudanese music until recently.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =rhC53FCsGs0XX
Ouleya Mint Amartichitt she is a Moorish singer from Mauritania
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
34zzza5673

Eskilstuna, Sweden

#6853 Aug 18, 2012
34zzza5673 wrote:
<quoted text>
Whites have used Australoids to explain any African like skulls found out Africa. They have tried to claim Natufians skulls in the levant were australoid. They could not have been African. Africa being closer to the levant than Australoids on the other side of the planet. Even skull found in north Africa have been explained as archaic humans. Others came up with the archaic human who lived along side "modern humans" as late as 12, 000 yeaRS AGO. To whites let it be anything bantu African. That is how they explained away the African like skull in Brazil.
*but African*

“100%”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

United States

#6854 Aug 18, 2012
trollslayer wrote:
<quoted text>
"The forces of modernization" destroy hundreds, maybe even thousands, of unexplored sites every year, he speculated.
"For most of the country there is still a great knowledge void," Grove said. "The further you get from major towns and major highways, the less is known."
I'm surprised the left this guys face intact.
http://rlv.zcache.com/ancient_olmec_head_prin...
According to the article, archeologists are just now learning more about The Olmecs. Many parts of Mexico hasn't even been uncovered. If it wasn't for the large stoneheads, archeologists would have accepted The Mayan Civilization as being the oldest.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#6855 Aug 18, 2012
34zzza5673 wrote:
<quoted text>
Whites have used Australoids to explain any African like skulls found out Africa. They have tried to claim Natufians skulls in the levant were australoid.
They also said that Natufians had Sub Saharan affinities.
34zzza5673 wrote:
They could not have been African. Africa being closer to the levant than Australoids on the other side of the planet.
You do know that Austrics existed in Asia before migrating to Australia, right?
34zzza5673 wrote:
Even skull found in north Africa have been explained as archaic humans. Others came up with the archaic human who lived along side "modern humans" as late as 12, 000 yeaRS AGO. To whites let it be anything bantu African. That is how they explained away the African like skull in Brazil.
I was easy to "explain away" because they found no genetic evidence, nor did they find any African settlements on the east coast of the Americas.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#6856 Aug 18, 2012
Redefined wrote:
<quoted text>
No I'm saying if Olmecs came from "Africa", it doesn't necessarily mean they came from "West Africa" during the time.
I'm saying that if Olmecs were Malinke-Bambara, which is exactly what you are claiming, then they would have HAD to have come from West Africa during practically any time period.

Now where is the evidence for them making that journey?

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min Nuculur option 1,189,643
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 9 min Ben YISRAEL 108,918
Why is Black on White crime not considered a ha... (May '12) 15 min T-BOS 120
My son better never bring a white woman home, R... (Sep '10) 18 min KIP 319
why do white women love black men so much. (Dec '11) 24 min KIP 497
BW are so desperate to get married, they are ma... 31 min Dinie 411
Black Americans are FIGHTING the BATTLE for EVE... 34 min Ingwe Temujin 18
Are black people natural savages? (Nov '11) 52 min Go Blue Forever 1,297
This is not an AA Forum. It is a hate group site. 56 min iamcuriousnow 17
All women prefer white men 2 hr hackney 2,523
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 3 hr Don Barros Serrano 31,145
More from around the web