Native Americans come from Africa?

Sinajuavi
Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#43 Aug 15, 2013
Man O Steel wrote:
<quoted text>
What the hell are you talking about? Have you forgoten Leif Ericson?? I think you are being a bit closed minded and pretentious!
I've stated several times that that Viking settlement 1000 ad in Newfoundland is an exception.

I think you are a twit looking for attention. Sit down and shut up.

Sinajuavi
Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#44 Aug 15, 2013
Redefined wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope! The oldest Inhabitants from South Asia & as far as Australia were Negritos because they carry the deepest MTDNA. There is no light skin group who PREDATE Negritos unless they are The Bushman from South Africa.
Who cares, jackass? Nobody is discussing the negritos. I was talking about S Indians, who had been lighter, but evolved to be darker, as did W-Central Africans, who were lighter in Ethiopia, but darkened as they migrated further south.

The negritos, however, probably were lighter before they reached the Andamans. Likely they were more like the Khoisan in color.

So, your precious negritos provide yet another example that skin color can evolve to be darker as well as lighter, a fact you Afronazi lowlife subhuman scum racists always deny, flying in the face of all evidence, as always.

Sinajuavi
Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#45 Aug 15, 2013
RiichGiirl wrote:
Of course Natives are from Africans.
Wrong, Afronazi culture-vulture racist scum.

Get your grubby greasy racist cultish Afronazi paws off other peoples' histories, cabrona.

Sinajuavi
Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#46 Aug 15, 2013
Cowboy Outlaw 45 wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah I hear you, some people just don't get it, or don't want to get it lol.
You, asswad, don't get that there is no evidence for Africans in America. No DNA, cultural remains, human remains, boats, crops, disease immunity... NOTHING!

If you KNEW anything about anthropology, which you don't, you would understand what this gross lack of evidence means. But you're a racist Afronazi cultist, so no amount of FACTS will dissuade you, you filthy subhuman racist piece of $hit.

Know what I do to racists, boy? Come see me... I'll dissuade your stupid ass and most definitively.

Sinajuavi
Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#47 Aug 15, 2013
Man O Steel wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not quite true. With regard to Kennewick man, his crania is different form most Modern Ameican Indians and leans more toward caucasian. They have not yet been able to analyze his DNA but the pressence of mtdna X in North America, and the features of some North east Indian groups cause some to believe that Caucasian arrived in the Americas prior to the Vikings. Also there are Cuacasians in Uzbekistan.
Wrong. Kennewick was not Caucasian. He had archaic traits, which are common in many places. His morphology was that of the Jomon (proto-Ainu), in other words, archaic NE Asians.

When were “Caucasians” in Uzbekistan? Much later. Tocharians, etc. But the term “Caucasian” is vague. The point is there are no Europeans, nor peoples related to western Eurasians. Only northeast Asians contributed to the Native American population.
Man O Steel

United States

#48 Aug 15, 2013
Sinajuavi wrote:
<quoted text>
I've stated several times that that Viking settlement 1000 ad in Newfoundland is an exception.
I think you are a twit looking for attention. Sit down and shut up.
An exception? Lol! When you said they were no Europeans before Colombus I believe you were speaking according to your ignorance. I think your game on here of scholastic grandstanding is wearing kind of thin. It's easy to see you are delusional. You don't have the final say so on anything, and you are no one to tell people what they should or not beleive! Now get lost loser!
Man O Steel

United States

#49 Aug 15, 2013
Sinajuavi wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Kennewick was not Caucasian. He had archaic traits, which are common in many places. His morphology was that of the Jomon (proto-Ainu), in other words, archaic NE Asians.
When were “Caucasians” in Uzbekistan? Much later. Tocharians, etc. But the term “Caucasian” is vague. The point is there are no Europeans, nor peoples related to western Eurasians. Only northeast Asians contributed to the Native American population.
Kennewick was Caucasian. There were prehistoric Europeans on the Eastern Seaboard, probably Africans in early Mexico too!
Uzbekistanis were Caucasisn from the begining then Turkish people invaded in recent times.
http://www.e-russianwomen.com/t/16_20_2_beaut...
No one believes anything you say on here because you are a pretentious fraud!

“No Substitute For The Truth”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

Orlando, FL

#50 Aug 15, 2013
Sinajuavi wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares, jackass? Nobody is discussing the negritos. I was talking about S Indians, who had been lighter, but evolved to be darker, as did W-Central Africans, who were lighter in Ethiopia, but darkened as they migrated further south.
The negritos, however, probably were lighter before they reached the Andamans. Likely they were more like the Khoisan in color.
So, your precious negritos provide yet another example that skin color can evolve to be darker as well as lighter, a fact you Afronazi lowlife subhuman scum racists always deny, flying in the face of all evidence, as always.
Do me a favor & respond to some else because I don't have the patience too sit here & read all your little theories, delusions and opinions. Have fun playing professor on Topix.

Sinajuavi
Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#51 Aug 15, 2013
Man O Steel wrote:
<quoted text>
Kennewick was Caucasian. There were prehistoric Europeans on the Eastern Seaboard, probably Africans in early Mexico too!
Uzbekistanis were Caucasisn from the begining then Turkish people invaded in recent times.
http://www.e-russianwomen.com/t/16_20_2_beaut...
No one believes anything you say on here because you are a pretentious fraud!
Kennewick was analyzed by anthropologists and determined not to be European, boy, you filthy asswipe.

Kennewick was of archaic NE Asian type. Like Jomon. Of course you don't know what Jomon people were... because you are uneducated in this field.

I am trained in anthropology, boy, so you only make yourself into a jackass trying to argue with me, with your pop lay non-knowledge and your racist attitude. I'll slap that racism out of you, boy.

There are NO respected scientists who think Kennewick was white, you stinking foetid lowlife. Only white supremacist subhumans believe that.

GET your grubby greasy filthy white-supremacist racist paws off Native history and heritage, boy!

Sinajuavi
Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#52 Aug 15, 2013
Man O Steel wrote:
<quoted text>
An exception? Lol! When you said they were no Europeans before Colombus I believe you were speaking according to your ignorance. I think your game on here of scholastic grandstanding is wearing kind of thin. It's easy to see you are delusional. You don't have the final say so on anything, and you are no one to tell people what they should or not beleive! Now get lost loser!
Moron, I'd said that already repeatedly.

You're a smartass with a big mouth, boy, and I'll shut that big mouth.

You in DC? I know a nice secluded place in western Maryland where we could meet and you could receive your correction. Ready to talk $hit to my face, boy? I know you are not. Typical cowardly racist son of cowards.

Racists like you are fun to maim. The crying and begging is music to my ears.
Man O Steel

United States

#53 Aug 15, 2013
Sinajuavi wrote:
<quoted text>
Moron, I'd said that already repeatedly.
You're a smartass with a big mouth, boy, and I'll shut that big mouth.
You in DC? I know a nice secluded place in western Maryland where we could meet and you could receive your correction. Ready to talk $hit to my face, boy? I know you are not. Typical cowardly racist son of cowards.
Racists like you are fun to maim. The crying and begging is music to my ears.
Lol! You said you studied anthropology, what went wrong? You sound like a raving lunatic! You want to maim me because I don't believe you? On another thread you said I wasn't White, now I'm white supremacist, why?? beacuse I think Kennewick is Cacausian. Wow! People say that you will meet all kinds of nuts on the internet but you take the cake buddy! They need to lock you up somewhere!
Like the other poster said, don't bother talking to me again. I don't want anything to do with someone like you.

Sinajuavi
Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#54 Aug 15, 2013
Man O Steel wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol! You said you studied anthropology, what went wrong? You sound like a raving lunatic! You want to maim me because I don't believe you? On another thread you said I wasn't White, now I'm white supremacist, why?? beacuse I think Kennewick is Cacausian. Wow! People say that you will meet all kinds of nuts on the internet but you take the cake buddy! They need to lock you up somewhere!
Like the other poster said, don't bother talking to me again. I don't want anything to do with someone like you.
Pay attention, white supremacist scum.

I am quite familiar with the give-and-take of ideas, in the context of a seminar, for example, where we are free to disagree and demand proof of everything anyone asserts.

But your white racist attempts to claim America even after the investigations disprove you, only indicate that you have a RACIST presupposition which overrides logic. I have no such presupposition. I am guided only by EVIDENCE and the analysis of evidence guided by legitimate science.

You know nothing about any of this. You're a lay pop mass-culture idiot.

You WANT Kennewick to be white. But he was not. He resembles contemporary peoples of northeast Asia. Therefore, WHY should we look beyond NE Asia---to Europe or Africa---for his origins? His type was in northeast Asia!!!

Do you know what Occam's razor is? No...

It is that when you have a simpler explanation that works, you don't go seeking roundabout complex explanations which require proof we don't have. We have the evidence that Kennewick looks like his contemporaries in northeast Asia. Those people were in many cases ancestral to people today called “Mongoloid”, though they may not classify as Mongoloid because they were archaic plus had not received type O admixture yet. They were likely predominantly of type C.

In any case, there is no basis for pretending Kennewick was other than northeast Asian.
UruEuWauWau

Philipsburg, Sint Maarten (Dutch part)

#55 Aug 16, 2013
Sinajuavi wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares, jackass? Nobody is discussing the negritos. I was talking about S Indians, who had been lighter, but evolved to be darker, as did W-Central Africans, who were lighter in Ethiopia, but darkened as they migrated further south.
The negritos, however, probably were lighter before they reached the Andamans. Likely they were more like the Khoisan in color.
So, your precious negritos provide yet another example that skin color can evolve to be darker as well as lighter, a fact you Afronazi lowlife subhuman scum racists always deny, flying in the face of all evidence, as always.
Barro, yo, who says that so-called 'IVegritoes'(a BS term) were the oldest & 1st inhabitants of Asia?! Any proof? ;-) Till this date I never heard of any. Actually, it's even said & corroborated by some genetic studies that Andamanese are only 10k yrs old, which means younger than Papuans, Melanesians & Australian Aborigines. ;-)

- as for bein' light or dark. How 'bout this 'IVegrito' little gyal, she is light or dark? I'd say light, & her hair is reddish
h.ttp//is.gd/T2QStI

Level 3

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#56 Aug 16, 2013
White anthropologists have acknowledged the ancient Afican presence in the Americas.

"Dr. Wiercinski (1972) supports this claim with skeletal evidence from several Olmec sites where he found skeletons that were analogous to the West African type black.

Wiercinski discovered that 13.5 percent of the skeletons from Tlatilco and 4.5 percent of the skeletons from Cerro de las Mesas were Africoid (Rensberger,1988; Wiercinski, 1972; Wiercinski & Jairazbhoy 1975).
Dr. Wiercinski (1972) claims that some of the Olmecs were of African origin.

He supports this claim with skeletal evidence from several Olmec sites where he found skeletons that were analogous to the West African type black. Many Olmec skulls show cranial deformations (Pailles, 1980), yet Wiercinski (1972b) was able to determine the ethnic origins of the Olmecs.

Marquez (1956, 179-80) made it clear that a common trait of the African skulls found in Mexico include marked prognathousness ,prominent cheek bones are also mentioned. Fronto-occipital deformation among the Olmec is not surprising because cranial deformations was common among the Mande speaking people until fairly recently (Desplanges, 1906).

ccording to Wiercinski (1972b) Africans represented more than 13.5 percent of the skeletal remains found at Tlatilco and 4.5 percent of the Cerro remains (see Table 2). Wiercinski (1972b) studied a total of 125 crania from Tlatilco and Cerro. An Anthropological Study on the origin of the Olmecs - the presence of African people at the Olmec sites of Tlatilco and Cerro. Dr. Wiercinski, Head of the Department of Anthropology at Warsaw University

There were 38 males and 62 female crania in the study from Tlatilco and 18 males and 7 females from Cerro. Whereas 36 percent of the skeletal remains were of males, 64 percent were women (Wiercinski, 1972b).

To determine the racial heritage of the ancient Olmecs, Dr. Wiercinski (1972b) used classic diagnostic traits determined by craniometric and cranioscopic methods. These measurements were then compared to a series of three crania sets from Poland, Mongolia and Uganda to represent the three racial categories of mankind.

The Olmec came from Saharan Africa 3200 years ago. They came in boats which are depicted in the Izapa Stela no.5, in twelve migratory waves. These Proto-Olmecs belonged to seven clans which served as the base for the Olmec people"

LOL!

Sinajuavi
Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#57 Aug 16, 2013
Redefined wrote:
<quoted text>
Do me a favor & respond to some else because I don't have the patience too sit here & read all your little theories, delusions and opinions. Have fun playing professor on Topix.
Don't smartass me, boy. Unless you're ready to do it in person and receive the slapdown you deserve, you racist turd.

You are an uneducated dropped-out pseudo-intellectual racist cultist, boy, nothing more. I know this material, am well-educated, and know very well how full of crap you are.

Your BS will continue to be debunked, boy, and if you don't like it, boy, too f'ing bad, boy.

Got that, boy? Now shut your goddam racist mouth.

Sinajuavi
Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#58 Aug 16, 2013
Mystery Solver wrote:
White anthropologists have acknowledged the ancient Afican presence in the Americas.
"Dr. Wiercinski (1972) supports this claim with skeletal evidence from several Olmec sites where he found skeletons that were analogous to the West African type black.
Wiercinski discovered that 13.5 percent of the skeletons from Tlatilco and 4.5 percent of the skeletons from Cerro de las Mesas were Africoid (Rensberger,1988; Wiercinski, 1972; Wiercinski & Jairazbhoy 1975).
Dr. Wiercinski (1972) claims that some of the Olmecs were of African origin.
He supports this claim with skeletal evidence from several Olmec sites where he found skeletons that were analogous to the West African type black. Many Olmec skulls show cranial deformations (Pailles, 1980), yet Wiercinski (1972b) was able to determine the ethnic origins of the Olmecs.
Marquez (1956, 179-80) made it clear that a common trait of the African skulls found in Mexico include marked prognathousness ,prominent cheek bones are also mentioned. Fronto-occipital deformation among the Olmec is not surprising because cranial deformations was common among the Mande speaking people until fairly recently (Desplanges, 1906).
ccording to Wiercinski (1972b) Africans represented more than 13.5 percent of the skeletal remains found at Tlatilco and 4.5 percent of the Cerro remains (see Table 2). Wiercinski (1972b) studied a total of 125 crania from Tlatilco and Cerro. An Anthropological Study on the origin of the Olmecs - the presence of African people at the Olmec sites of Tlatilco and Cerro. Dr. Wiercinski, Head of the Department of Anthropology at Warsaw University
There were 38 males and 62 female crania in the study from Tlatilco and 18 males and 7 females from Cerro. Whereas 36 percent of the skeletal remains were of males, 64 percent were women (Wiercinski, 1972b).
To determine the racial heritage of the ancient Olmecs, Dr. Wiercinski (1972b) used classic diagnostic traits determined by craniometric and cranioscopic methods. These measurements were then compared to a series of three crania sets from Poland, Mongolia and Uganda to represent the three racial categories of mankind.
The Olmec came from Saharan Africa 3200 years ago. They came in boats which are depicted in the Izapa Stela no.5, in twelve migratory waves. These Proto-Olmecs belonged to seven clans which served as the base for the Olmec people"
LOL!
All debunked. Wiercinski's conclusions are not supported. Any archaic skeletons in Mexico were of archaic NE Asian type, not African.

“Africoid” is a BS designation, based on cranial morphology and such, the proportions of which do not tell us the origin of a skeleton.

There were no Africans in Mexico, you lying Afronazi $hit.

Cranial deformation was common in precolumbian Mexico, you ass, and had nothing to do with the Mande.

You filthy scum, you are in the tradition of Eurocentrics who attempted to claim European or Mideastern origins for civilization in America. Civilization in America was 100% indigenous, boy, and no Africans were involved.

The Olmecs are PROVEN to have come from Soconusco. You don't even know where that is, so shut your lying filthy ill-raised racist mouth, you stinking Afronazi halfman.

Level 3

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#59 Aug 16, 2013
Sinajuavi wrote:
<quoted text>
All debunked. Wiercinski's conclusions are not supported. Any archaic skeletons in Mexico were of archaic NE Asian type, not African.
“Africoid” is a BS designation, based on cranial morphology and such, the proportions of which do not tell us the origin of a skeleton.
There were no Africans in Mexico, you lying Afronazi $hit.
Cranial deformation was common in precolumbian Mexico, you ass, and had nothing to do with the Mande.
You filthy scum, you are in the tradition of Eurocentrics who attempted to claim European or Mideastern origins for civilization in America. Civilization in America was 100% indigenous, boy, and no Africans were involved.
The Olmecs are PROVEN to have come from Soconusco. You don't even know where that is, so shut your lying filthy ill-raised racist mouth, you stinking Afronazi halfman.
If you think you are upset now, you keep trying to tangle with me and they'll next be carrying you away in a straight jacket!I got plenty of goodies to pull out my hat. You best beware! LOL!
It's not just their physical appearance which was African but their language.

"Olmec/Mande Origin of Mayan Writing
Some researchers maintain that Mayan writing is of Mixe-Zoque origin. These researchers cite the Mixe-Zoque words for writing :[i]tunja and [i]haypa as if they have something to do with Mayan writing. These terms have nothing to do with Mayan writing.

But the Mande term for writing is clearly the source for the Mayan term for 'writing'.B. Stross (1973) mentions the Mayan tradition for a foreign origin of Mayan writing.

This idea is also confirmed by Mayan oral tradition mentioned by Tozzer ( 1941), and C.H. Brown (1991) that claimed that writing did not exist among the Proto-Maya.Terrence Kaufman has proposed that the Olmec spoke a Mixe-Zoquean speech and therefore the authors of Olmec writing were Mixe-Zoquean speakers.

This view fails to match the epigraphic evidence. The Olmec people spoke a Manding (Malinke-Bambara) language and not Zoquean.There is a clear African substratum for the origin of writing among the Maya (Wiener, 1922).

All the experts agree that the Olmec people gave the Maya people writing (Schele & Freidel, 1990; Soustelle, 1984). Mayanist also agree that the Proto-Maya term for writing was *c'ihb' or *c'ib'.

Figure 1. Mayan Terms for Writing

Yucatec c'i:b'
Chorti c'ihb'a
Mam c'i:b'at
Lacandon c'ib'
Chol c'hb'an
Teco c'i:b'a
Itza c'ib'
Chontal c'ib'
Ixil c'ib'
Mopan c'ib'
Tzeltalan c'ib'

Proto-Term for write *c'ib'

The Mayan /c/ is often pronounced like the hard Spanish /c/ and has a /s/ sound. Brown (1991) argues that *c'ihb may be the ancient Mayan term for writing but, it can not be Proto-Mayan because writing did not exist among the Maya until 600 B.C.

This was 1500 years after the break up of the Proto-Maya (Brown, 1991). This means that the Mayan term for writing was probably borrowed by the Maya from the inventors of the Mayan writing system.Tozzer (1941) supports the linguistic evidence that the Mayan language was introduced to the Maya by non-Mayan speakers.

Tozzer noted that the Yucatec Maya claimed that they got writing from a group of foreigners called Tutul Xiu from Nonoulco.The Tutul Xiu were probably Manding speaking Olmecs. The term Tutul Xiu, can be translated using Manding as follows:Tutul , "Very good subjects of the Order". Xiu , "The Shi (/the race)"."The Shis (who) are very good Subjects of the cult-Order".The term Shi, is probably related to the Manding term Si, which was also used as an ethnonym.

The Mayan term for writing is derived from the Manding term *se'be. Below are the various terms for writing used by the Manding/Mande people for writing."

LOL!

“No Substitute For The Truth”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

Orlando, FL

#60 Aug 16, 2013
UruEuWauWau wrote:
<quoted text>
Barro, yo, who says that so-called 'IVegritoes'(a BS term) were the oldest & 1st inhabitants of Asia?! Any proof? ;-) Till this date I never heard of any. Actually, it's even said & corroborated by some genetic studies that Andamanese are only 10k yrs old, which means younger than Papuans, Melanesians & Australian Aborigines. ;-)
- as for bein' light or dark. How 'bout this 'IVegrito' little gyal, she is light or dark? I'd say light, & her hair is reddish
h.ttp//is.gd/T2QStI
The oldest MtDNA's outside of The African Continent(L & M) are within' Populations who I would label a sun PPL. "L" being in The Americas & "M" being in Madagascar. According to Ancient MtDNA's, The further we go back in time, the darker PPL get.

Sinajuavi
Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#61 Aug 17, 2013
UruEuWauWau wrote:
<quoted text>
Barro, yo, who says that so-called 'IVegritoes'(a BS term) were the oldest & 1st inhabitants of Asia?! Any proof? ;-) Till this date I never heard of any. Actually, it's even said & corroborated by some genetic studies that Andamanese are only 10k yrs old, which means younger than Papuans, Melanesians & Australian Aborigines. ;-)
- as for bein' light or dark. How 'bout this 'IVegrito' little gyal, she is light or dark? I'd say light, & her hair is reddish
h.ttp//is.gd/T2QStI
Yes. Afronazis MUST claim negritos as Africans and first, because their dogma is everything was black and they were first and everyone else is a cave ape.

Sinajuavi
Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#62 Aug 17, 2013
Mystery Solver wrote:
<quoted text>
If you think you are upset now, you keep trying to tangle with me and they'll next be carrying you away in a straight jacket!I got plenty of goodies to pull out my hat. You best beware! LOL!
It's not just their physical appearance which was African but their language.
"Olmec/Mande Origin of Mayan Writing
Some researchers maintain that Mayan writing is of Mixe-Zoque origin. These researchers cite the Mixe-Zoque words for writing :[i]tunja and [i]haypa as if they have something to do with Mayan writing. These terms have nothing to do with Mayan writing.
But the Mande term for writing is clearly the source for the Mayan term for 'writing'.B. Stross (1973) mentions the Mayan tradition for a foreign origin of Mayan writing.
This idea is also confirmed by Mayan oral tradition mentioned by Tozzer ( 1941), and C.H. Brown (1991) that claimed that writing did not exist among the Proto-Maya.Terrence Kaufman has proposed that the Olmec spoke a Mixe-Zoquean speech and therefore the authors of Olmec writing were Mixe-Zoquean speakers.
This view fails to match the epigraphic evidence. The Olmec people spoke a Manding (Malinke-Bambara) language and not Zoquean.There is a clear African substratum for the origin of writing among the Maya (Wiener, 1922).
All the experts agree that the Olmec people gave the Maya people writing (Schele & Freidel, 1990; Soustelle, 1984). Mayanist also agree that the Proto-Maya term for writing was *c'ihb' or *c'ib'.
Figure 1. Mayan Terms for Writing
Yucatec c'i:b'
Chorti c'ihb'a
Mam c'i:b'at
Lacandon c'ib'
Chol c'hb'an
Teco c'i:b'a
Itza c'ib'
Chontal c'ib'
Ixil c'ib'
Mopan c'ib'
Tzeltalan c'ib'
Proto-Term for write *c'ib'
The Mayan /c/ is often pronounced like the hard Spanish /c/ and has a /s/ sound. Brown (1991) argues that *c'ihb may be the ancient Mayan term for writing but, it can not be Proto-Mayan because writing did not exist among the Maya until 600 B.C.
This was 1500 years after the break up of the Proto-Maya (Brown, 1991). This means that the Mayan term for writing was probably borrowed by the Maya from the inventors of the Mayan writing system.Tozzer (1941) supports the linguistic evidence that the Mayan language was introduced to the Maya by non-Mayan speakers.
Tozzer noted that the Yucatec Maya claimed that they got writing from a group of foreigners called Tutul Xiu from Nonoulco.The Tutul Xiu were probably Manding speaking Olmecs. The term Tutul Xiu, can be translated using Manding as follows:Tutul , "Very good subjects of the Order". Xiu , "The Shi (/the race)"."The Shis (who) are very good Subjects of the cult-Order".The term Shi, is probably related to the Manding term Si, which was also used as an ethnonym.
The Mayan term for writing is derived from the Manding term *se'be. Below are the various terms for writing used by the Manding/Mande people for writing."
LOL!
You smug bastard, you have nothing. You have Afronazi ravings. Your mistake, boy, is to not grasp that I know the real evidence, and you obviously know only Afronazi websites.

The Medieval Mande were millenia too late to have created Mayan writing, you jackass.

Your sources are a joke. A “clear African substratum”, lol... NO real linguist thinks so, boy. Wiener, 1922??? LOL!!!

I know of the real archaeology of the Olmecs. They were from Soconusco.

And YOU, boy, you listen up, a$$wad... these attempts to steal Native American culture will NOT BE TOLERATED. Afronazis attempting this on campuses will be increasingly confronted and have their lies shove back down their throats.

I suggest you get a real education, and meanwhile shut your clownish mouth, fool.

Yöu got that, boy?

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
Why do you hate ]\[iggers? 2 hr Ihn 11
Other cultures and their traditional dress 2 hr Ihn 5
'Sperminator' many fathered 26 kids in Target ... 2 hr Tamale 25
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 hr USAsince1680 1,744,862
Turn in illegal aliens and businesses who hire ... 2 hr KIP 10
Upvote if.... 2 hr Tamale 5
U have to be naked to post on this thread 3 hr Tamale 12
Africa's Greatness ENRAGES the Alt-Right Haters... 5 hr Anonymous 58
"Demon possession" - Is it real? 6 hr THX Human Overlord 27
Troop, What Does White Pride Represent To You? 7 hr Barros 24
This White Man Is About To Bathe His Dogs 7 hr SlayWithTheTruth 25
Starbucks Hate Victims Speak Out 13 hr Paul 99