Africans discovered the AMERICA befor...
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.

“No Substitute For The Truth”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

Orlando, FL

#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*

“No Substitute For The Truth”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

Orlando, FL

#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?

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#6857 Aug 18, 2012
trollslayer wrote:
<quoted text>
Ouleya Mint Amartichitt she is a Moorish singer from Mauritania
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =2PNgVzIL0ygXX&feature=cha nnel&list=UL
Afel Bocoum's stuff is pretty good too. Songhai from Mali.

“No Substitute For The Truth”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

Orlando, FL

#6858 Aug 18, 2012
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Not necessarily. An ethnic group who currently reside in Guinea-Bissau claimed their ancestors recently migrated from Sudan. So in other words the ancestors may have some culture differences than the descendants in West Africa depending on how long they've been in West Africa.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#6859 Aug 18, 2012
Redefined wrote:
<quoted text>
Not necessarily. An ethnic group who currently reside in Guinea-Bissau claimed their ancestors recently migrated from Sudan. So in other words the ancestors may have some culture differences than the descendants in West Africa depending on how long they've been in West Africa.
You're not making any sense. We are not talking about some irrelevant ethnic group you found. We are specifically talking about Malinke-Bambara. You have not studied the history of African languages, otherwise you would know that West Africa is the home of these people. If not, where did Malinke-Bambara originate, and, if you can, I would prefer if you gave a definitive answer, not your usual "well it could of", "well it might of", stuff.

If they migrated there from elsewhere in Africa, then that would have been before they adopted the language, which would subsequently mean before they created a script for it IN that language. Common sense.
trollslayer

Hammond, IN

#6860 Aug 18, 2012
Redefined wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Exactly...history is not set in stone...new findings are always occurring. My thought is we have to be unbiased when we find new data. We can't try to explain things away because we don't like what we find.

Unfortunately, we find some sectors of our society i.e. academia, scientist, historians etc. trying to explain away what they don't like, or what doesn't fit with certain agendas.
trollslayer

Hammond, IN

#6861 Aug 18, 2012
Redefined wrote:
<quoted text>
Not necessarily. An ethnic group who currently reside in Guinea-Bissau claimed their ancestors recently migrated from Sudan. So in other words the ancestors may have some culture differences than the descendants in West Africa depending on how long they've been in West Africa.
Exactly.....
When people migrant away from different areas the they will lose some of those original cultural traits, while taking on new ones. New ones that might not look the old cultural traits.

“No Substitute For The Truth”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

Orlando, FL

#6862 Aug 18, 2012
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not making any sense. We are not talking about some irrelevant ethnic group you found. We are specifically talking about Malinke-Bambara. You have not studied the history of African languages, otherwise you would know that West Africa is the home of these people. If not, where did Malinke-Bambara originate, and, if you can, I would prefer if you gave a definitive answer, not your usual "well it could of", "well it might of", stuff.
If they migrated there from elsewhere in Africa, then that would have been before they adopted the language, which would subsequently mean before they created a script for it IN that language. Common sense.
I wasn't implying Mande actually migrated from elsewhere. I giving an example of a ethnic group from West Africa who's ancestor came from Sudan. If the same scenario applied to Mande, I would have shown you similarities between their language & languages from Sudan.
Barros Serrano

United States

#6863 Aug 18, 2012
Redefined wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Large round sculptures, including heads, which are earlier in that tradition than those in Veracruz, have been found in Soconusco. What does that tell us, hmmmmm???

EVERYWHERE needs much more archaeology done! I wish every country on earth would scrap their military budget and spend 10% of the savings on archaeology. Think how much we'd know! Especially in places which have been traditionally overlooked such as Africa, SE Asia, etc.

You Afronazis should realize that everywhere the work HAS been done in America, things which had been attributed to outsiders have been proven to be Native. The mounds are a great example, where analysis proved that it was essentially the Shawnee who built them, in the Ohio Valley.

Likewise, archaeological work has revealed that the Olmecs are from Soconusco, not W Africa, Egypt, China, etc.

The few visits we know occurred from other continents (Polynesians, Vikings, Chinese) had no significant impact on cultures in America.
Barros Serrano

United States

#6864 Aug 18, 2012
trollslayer wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly...history is not set in stone...new findings are always occurring. My thought is we have to be unbiased when we find new data. We can't try to explain things away because we don't like what we find.
Unfortunately, we find some sectors of our society i.e. academia, scientist, historians etc. trying to explain away what they don't like, or what doesn't fit with certain agendas.
That's YOU! Nobody is explaining things away except where it involves pushing back the dates... that is always slow to change. It took them a long time to admit that people were in America before 11K yrs ago. Now we know this for a fact.

But your assertion that there is some Eurocentric conspiracy against the “truth” you think you've found, is nuts. The fact is, what you Afronazis are pushing is nonsense. You then HAVE to invent a conspiracy theory to explain why none of it is taken seriously.

But where's the conspiracy? Mainstream archaeology (in Archaeology Magazine, even) acknowledges that Upper Egypt was “black”. Certainly nobody obscured the facts about the African origin of humanity.

So what the F are you talking about?
Barros Serrano

United States

#6865 Aug 18, 2012
Redefined wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't implying Mande actually migrated from elsewhere. I giving an example of a ethnic group from West Africa who's ancestor came from Sudan. If the same scenario applied to Mande, I would have shown you similarities between their language & languages from Sudan.
People change languages, you know. One thing any anthropologist will tell you is that you CAN NOT assume there will be a match between a peoples' DNA, origin and language.

Examples: here we all are speaking English, but how many of us are really English?

Also, the nearly pure indigenous (Cro-Magnon) population of central Wales speak either a Celtic (Welsh) or Germanic (English) language, rather than that of their ancestors.

The Berbers speak an Afroasiatic language which is discernibly related to other Afroasiatic languages, which would not be discernible if it were their original language 30,000 years ago and had no common tie to other Afroasiatic languages more recent than that.

And so on.

Give it up, there were no Mande in Mexico!

“No Substitute For The Truth”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

Orlando, FL

#6866 Aug 18, 2012
trollslayer wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly.....
When people migrant away from different areas the they will lose some of those original cultural traits, while taking on new ones. New ones that might not look the old cultural traits.
Egypt is a good example. You have Africans who are descendant from Egyptians yet we don't see any strong cultural parallels between Ancient Egypt & Modern Africans & why would there be when Africans have been migrating all over Africa & the fact Christianity & Islam has been a major influence throughout Africa.

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
What happened to Kellyanne Conway 6 min JRT 16
News Trump: African-American history museum is 'fant... 11 min Lawrence Wolf 62
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 12 min Injudgement 1,496,892
Everyone hates black men (May '12) 13 min A Perm For BM 104
DARKYS! the WHITE RACE IS THE MASTER RACE! (May '16) 17 min JoeM 6
I need proof that the Ancient Egyptians Were No... (Oct '07) 1 hr Pharaohisrealite 34,440
Black women are jealous that white women can gr... (Jul '14) 1 hr sandi27 21
What Exactly Is a "Good" Black Man? 1 hr AAM2000 37
This good ol' boy never meant no harm! 1 hr Drilling for the ... 971
Difficulties Blacks in America Are Facing 2 hr Paul 15
Would Beyonce have sex with Trump? 3 hr Lori899 44
More from around the web