Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't understand how you can have a serious history discussion with someone who spells africa afrika, and america amerikkka. How about I put on a clown nose, womens panties on my head, and make fart sounds with my arm pit as I am speaking? It will have a similar effect on my message.
Youre dealing with afrocentrics with an inferiority complex, what do you expect? Theyre just desperate to claim something as their own.
Youre dealing with afrocentrics with an inferiority complex, what do you expect? Theyre just desperate to claim something as their own.
Perhaps tf Europeans and their descendants weren't so adamant in either ignoring or denigrating the contributions or history of Africa and its descendants, there wouldn't be a basis for such "desperate inferiority complexes" to begin with and we could all just go about reveling in the amazing history of all mankind.
I don't understand how you can have a serious history discussion with someone who spells africa afrika, and america amerikkka. How about I put on a clown nose, womens panties on my head, and make fart sounds with my arm pit as I am speaking? It will have a similar effect on my message.
My primary reason is that the topic is discussing a people and a part of history that I am not overwhelmingly familiar with, at least compared to other topics that I focus more on. So, to me, the act of engaging in the conversation and working to prove/disprove what is being said, is simply an impetus to read more on a subject that does hold some interest to me. I have engaged in similar debates on this forum in the past and learned a great deal, even when my position or what I "thought I knew" were proven wrong. The difference of course between myself and some that I debate these topics with, is that I'm not afraid to be proven wrong and "own it" when I am. Most likely because I have no personal stake in the debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
The funny thing is that is thread so reminiscent of the arguments that I had with the adherents of the Ketenga/Ture school of pan-africanistin in the late 60's-70's-ish that it is giving me flashbacks. Outside of the rare encounters with Black Hebrews or Rastafarians I really wasn't aware that these archaic arguments still held sway with anybody.
I blame the internet. Many past topics and theories that academia has "moved beyond" have resurfaced on the internet. There, people who cling to those theories have found a new audience that is often lacking the knowledge to pass an informed judgement for themselves. Instead of studying the subject matter to reach a conclusion, the new audience is presented the conclusion and then the carefully culled evidence to support it. So, some people end up lapping up something that they want to believe as it is being fed to them from a seemingly credible source backed by a "mountain of evidence".
Perhaps tf Europeans and their descendants weren't so adamant in either ignoring or denigrating the contributions or history of Africa and its descendants, there wouldn't be a basis for such "desperate inferiority complexes" to begin with and we could all just go about reveling in the amazing history of all mankind.
Perhaps tf Europeans and their descendants weren't so adamant in either ignoring or denigrating the contributions or history of Africa and its descendants, there wouldn't be a basis for such "desperate inferiority complexes" to begin with and we could all just go about reveling in the amazing history of all mankind.
Just a thought.
What have groups south of the Sahara contributed to mankind?
What have groups south of the Sahara contributed to mankind?
Is your statement meant to imply that Sub-Saharan Africans never achieved "civilization" (which they most certainly did) or is your statement simply limited to addressing a specifc list of things that they created that were disseminated globally?
Assuming that I am reading the question correctly, if we were having a conversation in 2879 on the population of the South American the answer would be the same, the title of indigenous would still go to the original inhabitants, unless you want to erase the history of the when and why of the African diaspora. So, here's your dilemma, either the Americas were populated by globe trotting Africans or they were the object of a forced migration. Which do want?
The truth, so tell me where did the indigenous of "Mesoamerica" come from?
Because it isn't history, certainly nothing based upon any reliable evidence to support the hypothesis. That doesn't mean that some prehistoric modern human from Africa couldn't have set sail and landed somewhere on the eastern coast of South America, but in sufficient numbers to sustain a population? The DNA evidence simply doesn't support that possibility. As for the purported evidence... when you selectively pick those elements that support your argument you can come up with virtually any argument. So perhaps you can explain why these Olmec artifacts never show up on the Olmecs as African websites?
Afro-Asiatic, you do know at one point in history Africa, which the "Middle East" is apart of and Asia was once all connected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
The chart was widely used until 1950 when it was replaced by spectrophotometry. It is not that the scale was "wrong" it was just that as an intstrument it left too much variability as two different people may come up with two different readings for the same patient. My point was not to "prove" anything with it, merely ask you based on that where "white ends and black begins", basically poking fun of the idea of using melanin as a definition. In 1975 a Harvard dermatologist broke them down into general bands of tanning behavior, with no racial classifications. His scale:
1-5 = Very light or white Celtic type.
6-10 = Light or light-skinned European.
11-15 = Light intermediate or dark-skinned European.
16-21 = Dark intermediate, Mediterranean or Olive-skinned.
22-28 = Dark or brown type.
29-39 = Very dark or black type.
Well, all people at some point came from Africa. However, I doubt you are basing your claim on that. What you are presenting is coincidental evidence. There is no hard evidence that Africans ever migrated or travelled to pre-Columbian America, let alone spawned civilization there. The absolute lack of any genetic evidence to tie the peoples together, is far more proof then coincidental evidence of spiritual practices and how they stacked rocks.
And why should that piece of evidence not be taken into question when dealing with said groups, though the hard evidence can technically be the structure of the head of the Olmec Statue, from high cheekbones, broad noses, and a full face are all Afrikan feautures. And better yet if all people came out of Afrika how did they get to South and Central Amerikkka?
So, images of whiter appearing Moors are "revision" but images of blacker appearing Moors are "unassailable proof"?
Moor mean black, etymology proves that. Plus can you give me the sources for the images you used that would help put an end to the whole revision in image debate or it may put fuel to the fire.
ovcatto already provided the counter and I agree with him. In 2879 the historical record will show that the African cultures in the Western Hemisphere were not "indigenous" as in they were the original occupants of the land, but that they were brought here via the slave trade.
As for "narrow views", there is a difference between accepting that things are possible, but not believing them until sufficient evidence is found and simply believing in the possible and then trying to find evidence, wherever and however, to support it.
You don't know what can between now and 800 years, there's no telling on how much the Earth changes and what happens to the skeletons, documents, and technology of today. You can see how much has changed in the past 100 years alone. There could be mountains of evidence revealed that we have no idea of, our knowledge of history is narrow from external sources, who so call provide us with it, they even throw some artifacts to the side and call it junk, same with every other western way of science.
There is evidence of pyramid building all over the world. From Europe to China to the Pacific Rim to the Americas to Africa to the Middle East. It seems that at some point most cultures built pyramids of some form, generally starting with dirt mounds and then progressing. However, each takes on their own unique flavor or is abandoned all together after a certain point. There are of course similarities with pyramid construction in Central/South America and in Egypt. Of course, one needs to ask themselves, exactly how many ways are there to pile up rocks? That all pyramids share some basic features is more related to the fact that there was really only one way for these cultures to build such large structures. Once you get beyond the basics, the pyramids have many differences in terms of form, design and function.
Obviously there was something going for everybody across the world to be building pyramids in certain areas, for certain reasons, in certain ways. You follow me, all that is not just by chance or coincidence, don't think that because they lived in a time before us or have a different culture then what we relish in that they were dumb by any chance (I know you didn't say that) or that their spiritual systems were not similar or have a common source.
Right off the bat we have the fact that Mesoamerican pyramids are roughly 2,000 years younger then the Egyptian pyramids. So, assuming that there was contact, why the extensive time lag before Mesoamericans started building pyramids? By the time they started, the people of Africa had long since abanonded the practice.
Who is the authority on pyramid building around the world? Who documented the actual time span between each building? And why are you so quick to believe these sources, it makes sense to you? I'm just curious.
Then we have the construction method. Egyptian pyramids are composed entirely of fitted cut stone blocks. The pyramids have a very strong core and were designed to last forever. Mesoamerican pyramids, feature a "rubble" core of large rocks and other debris dumped inside. They then placed rough cut stone to form the outer-layer "tiers" and this was then often finished in a layer of stucco.
Go revisit the Pyramids of Peru and Mexico and see if you still feel the same way.
Egyptian and other African pyramids were used as tombs and had nothing on top. Mesoamerican pyramids were used as temples and the temple was housed at the top of the structure. Egyptian pyramids were meant to house the bodies of the pharoah's for eternity. Mesoamerican pyramids in their function as temples were often torn down and rebuilt according to their comsological cycle beliefs.
None of the Giza Pyramids have tombs in them, show me which mummy or pharoah was placed in that "tomb" of the pyramids. The pyramids in "Mesoamerica" and KMT served the same purpose (hint hint) ----> cosmos.
Arches are a critical part of any structure. The Egyptians had knowledge of how to construct a "true arch" with a keystone providing great strength and allowing larger rooms and tunnels to be built in the pyramids. Mesoamericans only had knowledge of "corbelled arches" leading to their interior tunnels and rooms to be much smaller and far less stable. Why would one diffusing the knowledge of pyramid or any other building, fail to diffuse the secrets of the arch that is, oh so critical to strength and stability?
Mesoamerican pyramids were the centerpieces of their cities and served a public function as a place of worship. They were also accessible to people. Egpytian pyramids in their role as tombs were located outside the cities and were not meant to be accessed by anyone once the pharoah had been entombed, hence why they were sealed.
Egyptian pyramids are nearly true geometric pyramids, the goal of the Egpytian builders. The Mesoamerican pyramids are truncated and "squatter" do to how they were built and what their intended function was. Mesoamerican pyramids are heavily adorned and decorated with various sculptures and features. Egyptian and other African pyramids have no exterior decoration other then polished cut stone.
Do you know how long ago these pyramids(in Egypt) were built, more than a million years back, do you know what was the purpose of those pyramids, do you know the city layout of KMT back then? Did you also know that Ancient KMT in its heyday was a tropical and lush environment?
So, other then being what we consider in the shape of a pyramid, exactly how are they similar?
Stated with such absolute conviction, yet completely absent evidence to support the statement.
You're still not taking into account independent researchers, "afrocentric" scholars, or logical history. First of all the history of humanity spans back to a million + years, yet the Earth changed so much during that time span obviously. You can't always look to researchers and scholars as your number one source of information, you should look to yourself and bring actual facts that you know and use logic as well in these discussion not the guessing ability of scientific history. Think for yourself is all I'm saying
You're still not taking into account independent researchers, "afrocentric" scholars, or logical history.
Still not taking into account? As I stated previously, I was very much involved in these debates 40 years ago and while I found them intriguing subsequent research by contemporary scholars have gone a long way towards negatively closing the case on them.
Quote:
You can't always look to researchers and scholars as your number one source of information, you should look to yourself and bring actual facts that you know and use logic as well in these discussion not the guessing ability of scientific history.
I prefer facts to navel gazing, something else that I gave up when I tossed my last pack of Zig Zags.
Is your statement meant to imply that Sub-Saharan Africans never achieved "civilization" (which they most certainly did) or is your statement simply limited to addressing a specifc list of things that they created that were disseminated globally?
Hey, look this is a huge improvement. In the past his statement would have included the entire continent.
You're still not taking into account independent researchers, "afrocentric" scholars, or logical history. First of all the history of humanity spans back to a million + years, yet the Earth changed so much during that time span obviously. You can't always look to researchers and scholars as your number one source of information, you should look to yourself and bring actual facts that you know and use logic as well in these discussion not the guessing ability of scientific history. Think for yourself is all I'm saying
I was actually going to post responses, then I ran into some of your statements...
You stated that the pyramids in Egypt were built "more than a million years back". The oldest pyramid in Egypt, which is nothing like the pyramids we are talking about dates to roughly 10,500 years old. The pyramids built at the height of the pyramid building age in Egypt are 4,200 - 4,600 years old.
You state that "humanity spans back to a million + years". Homo sapiens, the branch of the genus Homo that is identified as "modern human" did not appear on the face of the Earth until roughly 200,000 years ago in it's current form. It was not until roughly 50,000 years ago that humans began to exhibit full behavioral modernity. It was not until 12,000 years ago that humans began to practice sedentary agriculture, domesticate animals and begin forming the roots of what became civilization.
One million years ago, the roughly 20,000 individuals that made up our non-Homo sapien ancestors were living in caves and just discovering the benefits of fire. They certainly weren't building pyramids...
If you choose to cling to such ridiculous and unsupported statements as the pyramids are "over a million years old" then it simply calls into question the credibility of anything you have to say.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
